Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WANDSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Meat Ration

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food what is the quantity of meat per month by which consumption will be reduced as the result of his proposed reduction of the domestic meat ration by twopence a week.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): About 19,000 tons per calendar month.

Sir Waldron Smithers: When will the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend realise that there is no world meat shortage, but that this is only due to State trading and bulk purchase?

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now give an assurance that the carcase and canned meat rations will be maintained at not less than their present level during the next four months.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. I am never prepared to speculate on the future level of the meat ration, which must depend upon the rate at which home produced and imported supplies become available.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there are rumours current in the country that the canned meat ration will disappear in the next few months? Will she take this opportunity of dispelling those rumours?

Dr. Summerskill: I am not aware of those rumours, but I can assure the hon. Member that it would be quite wrong at this moment to make a statement which might he entirely unfounded.

Mr. David Renton: Bearing in mind that this Question relates to a period up to four months ahead, and as the right hon. Lady says that she refuses to speculate on what will happen in that period, will she say how many months ahead represent definite planning and not speculation in the mind of the Government?

Dr. Summerskill: During those four months many shipments of meat may come in, but we cannot anticipate that.

Catering Establishments (Meat)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food what reductions he proposes to make in the allocation of meat to catering establishments when he reduces the domestic meat ration; whether the same reductions will be applied to all classes of catering establishments; and what quantity of meat he anticipates he will save by these reductions in each month.

Dr. Summerskill: The meat authorisations of catering establishments will be reduced by the same proportion as the domestic ration, that is, by one-sixth. This reduction will apply to all classes of catering establishments, with the exception of school canteens and school feeding centres, and will save about 1,300 tons of meat a month.

Government Purchases (Directors)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Food if he will give the names of the persons engaged by his Department to buy the principal foodstuffs for the nation and for which he is responsible; and whether he will give the qualification or experience of these persons to undertake such work.

Dr. Summerskill: As the reply is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The directors who are responsible for purchases of the principal foodstuffs are


given in the following table, together with the names of the firms or organisations with which they were connected at the time of entering the service of the

Commodity
Director
Name of Firm or Organisation


Animal Feedingstuffs
…
H.R. Humphries
…
Unilever Limited


Bacon
…
P.S. Hall
…
J. Loudon &amp; Co. Ltd.


Eggs
…
J.A. Peacock
…
Nurden &amp; Peacock Ltd.


Fresh Fruit and Vegetables
…
C. H. Lewis
…
E. H. Lewis &amp; Sons Ltd.


Imported Cereals
…
J. V. Rank
…
Joseph Rank Ltd.


Meat
…
Sir Henry Turner
…
New Zealand Refrigerating Co. Ltd.




Harold Jones
…
W. Weddell &amp; Co. Ltd.


Milk Products
…
J.W. Rodden
…
New Zealand Government (Dairy Sales Division)


Oils and Fats
…
L. G. Fisher
…
Unilever Limited


Potatoes
…
Sir John Mollett
…
Potato Marketing Board


Sugar
…
Sir William Rook
…
C. Czarnikow Ltd.


Tea
…
Henry Jones
…
Ewart MacCaughey &amp; Co. Ltd.

Fish

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Food what special action is being taken to increase the supply and consumption of fish in view of the decrease in the meat ration.

Dr. Summerskill: Fish supplies are very much subject to the weather and to the variations in the movement of fish in the sea. My right hon. Friend will take any practicable step to increase supplies and consumption. New trawlers are being brought into operation as rapidly as possible and we shall continue to give every encouragement to the quick-freezing of fish to the maximum during glut periods, and to import as much fish as we can afford. We have already issued one Food Facts advertisement devoted entirely to fish recipes and, if supplies justify it, further advertisements will follow.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Will the right hon. Lady see that all practical steps are taken to see that the processors will be in a position to take every advantage of processing whenever fish is landed?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. We will do all we can.

Moroccan Green Peas

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Food why, in the case of a recent allocation of Moroccan green peas for splitting, one firm of Scottish millers was favoured by being allowed to sell the manufactured product free of points; and if he is aware that other millers will be

Ministry of Food. These men, by reason of long experience, are experts in the purchasing of the commodities for which they are responsible.

unwilling to take up their allocations in future unless they can be assured of uniform treatment.

Dr. Summerskill: The only way to clear this small additional quantity before it deteriorated was to allow sales to caterers free of points. Other millers would be treated in the same way in similar circumstances.

Mr. Smith: Leaving aside altogether any question of a blunder on the part of the right hon. Lady's Department, will she consider seriously the possibility of freeing this processed product from points, in view of the fact that it has a very high protein content and we have very little meat?

Dr. Summerskill: I will answer the second part of the supplementary question first. Yes, we are looking at that. The hon. Member accuses my Department of a blunder. I think he is in a position to know that there was no blunder, and that, in fact, we offered the peas to his firm, and if they had applied for the same concession as the Glasgow millers they would have received it.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Lady aware that if the peas had been offered to my firm with that particular proviso, we would have taken them?

Dr. Summerskill: There was no proviso when we first offered them to the Glasgow millers and they asked us to make a concession. If the hon. Gentleman had desired the same concession we would, of course, have given it.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, in view of the reduction in the meat ration, it is quite impossible for a single person, unless he has meals outside, to live on the existing ration?

French Meat

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on his negotiations for a supply of meat from France.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) on 23rd March.

Mr. Gammans: Would the right hon. Lady care to comment on the statement of the French Minister of Finance last week that we could have almost unlimited supplies of pork at 1s. 9d. per pound if we liked to ask for it?

Dr. Summerskill: There are 2,500 tons of frozen pork now available and we shall arrange for it to come here.

Herrings (Quick Freezing)

Sir David Robertson: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements he has made to quick-freeze surplus British herrings during the summer season for distribution and sale during the winter when British herrings are not available.

Dr. Summerskill: I am already considering this proposal, which has some technical and marketing difficulties, and will let the hon. Member know the outcome.

Sir D. Robertson: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that only 1½ per cent. of the total herring catch is now being frozen and 30 per cent. is being sent to Germany and paid for by the British taxpayer? Will the Minister of Food take that into account? Surely at this time this valuable food of high protein content is needed at home?

Dr. Summerskill: I agree with the hon. Member's last remark, and I think he knows that we are doing what we can in the matter. We have to look at an important point which he will thoroughly appreciate, namely, whether it is possible to store these herring for a long period, during the summer months.

Potatoes

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to market ware potatoes in clamps on farms in Devonshire in view of the need to open such clamps to take out seed potatoes needed for spring planting.

Dr. Summerskill: If the potatoes have been bought by my Department and are not needed for later use, arrangements will quickly be made for the ware to be moved and any grower who wishes to dress out seed should communicate with the area potato supervisor.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the right hon. Lady say to what extent the answer she has given will increase the loss on potatoes from £10 million to about £20 million?

Dr. Summerskill: That is not the Question.

Foreign Workers (Meat)

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Food what is the value of the weekly meat ration now given to European volunteer workers in camps.

Dr. Summerskill: The allowance of meat to European volunteer workers' camps is the same as to camps housing British workers. It varies according to the type of work upon which the residents are engaged, and according to the number of main meals served. There is no weekly allowance per resident.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: How does this ration compare with that given to agricultural workers? The report I have is that agricultural workers are getting a very much lower ration than the European volunteer workers who are working alongside them.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think that is so. I am prepared to give the hon. Member all the details. We try to equate the value of the domestic ration to the value of the ration given in these hostels. I am quite prepared to amplify this answer when I write to him, and to give him the exact amount which they receive. He will find that domestic consumption plus the extra food available to people such as agricultural workers is approximately the same in value as that received by the people in the camps.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the right hon. Lady put that answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT so that we can all see it?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, I will give some of the details, which I am quite sure will satisfy hon. Members.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the information I have is that when the agricultural worker was getting 1s. worth a week meat ration, the European volunteer worker was getting a ration of 2s. 9d. worth a week?

Mr. Speaker: The Question asked what was the value of the weekly meat ration now given to European volunteer workers in camps.

Captain Crookshank: The point we should like to know is whether it is correct or not that at the time in question the European volunteer worker was getting a ration of 2s. 9d. worth a week. It is a great grievance in the country districts.

Sugar Ration

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether since he is at present unable to de-ration sugar, he will consider increasing the existing ration of 10 oz. a week per person to 1 lb. per person a week, until sugar is de-rationed, in view of the increased supplies expected as a result of current negotiations with Cuba.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. To increase the ration to 1 lb. per week would take a large amount of dollar sugar, the only extra sugar available today, and this we cannot afford to buy.

Mr. De la Bère: If not, why not? Is not the right hon. Lady aware of the constructive suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) in the Adjournment Debate on sugar? Is it not a fact that in Cuba there is a huge unsaleable surplus which it would be possible to acquire for preserving fruit as well as for increasing the ration? If we cannot get the dollars, why not negotiate in sterling, if there is a will on the part if the Government to obtain that sugar? Are we not one of the worst-fed nations in Europe?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that a week last Friday I went into great detail on this matter. I know that I can never satisfy the hon. Gentleman by my replies, but I endeavour to do so. The answer is that the amount of sugar for which

he has asked in this Question comes to about an additional half a million tons, which would cost 56 million dollars, and we cannot afford it.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not offer to pay in sterling when there is a huge surplus which is unsaleable because there are no dollar buyers?

Duties and Subsidies

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food if he will name the foods which both pay Customs or Excise Duty and are subsidised; and what is the rate of duty and subsidy in each case.

Dr. Summerskill: I regret that in the time available it has not been possible to compile this information. I will publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Mr. Keeling: Would the right hon. Lady explain the reason—I have no doubt that there is one—for putting something on the price on the one hand and taking it off on the other?

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. Member will see the answer to that in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Ice Cream (Raw Materials)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that ice cream manufacturers are unable in many cases to fulfil the orders given them by hospitals, schools, etc., for ice cream as they do not receive a sufficient allocation of the necessary raw materials such as sugar, milk powder, etc.; and if he will consider giving additional allowances based on the orders received by the manufacturers from such institutions.

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid I cannot allocate extra ingredients for this purpose because they are so scarce.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that a statement was made, and was generally circulated in the Press, to the effect that there would be a larger supply of sugar for this purpose at the time when sweets were de-rationed, and in view of the fact that the warmer season is now approaching when the hospitals and other institutions will require more of these commodities, will not my right hon. Friend consider my suggestion in respect of specific cases where hospitals, etc. are supplied?

Dr. Summerskill: There is a sugar and fat mixture off the ration which many hospitals and schools buy. If they care to use their ordinary ration of fat and sugar, they are entitled to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

London—Holyhead Road (Subsidence)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what mileage of dual-carriageway road construction there is on the main A.5, London to Holyhead road, on the 160 miles between London and Shrewsbury;
(2) how much of the main London to Holyhead road is in danger of subsiding;
(3) how many humped-back and narrow bridges there are on the main London to Holyhead road, A.5, between London and Shrewsbury.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Callaghan): The only part of the London—Holyhead trunk road known to be affected by subsidence is a length of three miles near Brownhills, Staffordshire, where colliery workings cause slight subsidence. On the London—Shrewsbury portion of this road, which does not follow A.5 all the way, there are 11 miles of dual carriageways and three hump-backed and five narrow bridges.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this arterial road is in an appalling condition, and is he satisfied that it will take the additional traffic which will be necessitated by the Royal Show at Shrewsbury this year?

Mr. Callaghan: We shall keep the fact of the show in mind, but broadly speaking this road is able to carry all the traffic which is using it at the moment.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Have the Ministry of Transport no immediate plans for the improvement of this road?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member has a Question down at out that for a later day.

Travel Facilities, London (Report)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport when he will publish the report of the working party

established by the British Transport Commission relating to travel facilities in London.

Mr. Callaghan: This report is with the printers and will, I hope, be available in about six weeks' time.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would my hon. Friend endeavour to expedite the issue of this report, and if it cannot be issued from the printers in less than six weeks, would it be possible to place a summary or an advance copy in the Library? I ask that in view of the particular interest in the report in North London, owing to the fact that priority is being given to development in South London pending publication of the report.

Mr. Callaghan: This is a long-range project which will involve many years' work. I do not think that six weeks is an unreasonable time.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is there included in this report any proposal to extend the Underground to Brixton, Streatham and on to Croydon?

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will read the report and see.

London—Dover Road (Signs)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the signposting of the Dover—London Road; what is the estimated cost per mile; and when it is proposed to make a start on the other main roads.

Mr. Callaghan: Work is about to start on the Dover—London road in erecting a new set of road signs and re-siting many others at a cost of about £50 per mile. Signposting should be finished by June if delivery by manufacturers runs to time. Considerable progress has been made by local highway authorities in improving the signposting of other main roads.

Mr. Gammans: Will the hon. Gentleman first say why there has been this appalling delay; and secondly whether we have to wait until this road is finished before the other main trunk roads are adequately dealt with?

Mr. Callaghan: In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, there has been no delay. The answer to the second part is


that he obviously could not have heard me say that considerable progress has already been made on other main roads.

Mr. William Shepherd: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the cost of £50 per mile compares with the pre-war cost for this work?

Mr. Callaghan: Not without notice.

Traffic Diversions (Local Authorities)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Transport whether local authorities are allowed to make a permanent diversion of traffic without the authority of a statutory instrument.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. Local authorities may make orders, subject to my right hon. Friend's confirmation, to regulate the movement of traffic on all roads except trunk roads. Such orders are not statutory instruments. My right hon. Friend makes statutory instruments for the regulation of traffic on trunk roads and roads in the London traffic area.

Captain Crowder: Can the Minister say whether a local authority has power to declare a street a one-way street, without reference to the Minister?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, not permanently. In some places the police have power to make temporary diversions.

Cattle Grids (Legislation)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to make it possible for a local authority to erect cattle grids on a public highway.

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend is in favour of such legislation and is awaiting a suitable opportunity for introducing it.

Mr. Collins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many projects for increasing food production are held up because there are no grids on roads over places like Exmoor, and could he, pending the introduction of legislation, ask the local authorities to get their plans and estimates ready so that there shall be as little delay as possible?

Mr. Callaghan: Some highway authorities have already constructed the grids, assuming the legal position: and,

without prejudice to the legality of the matter, my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider grants in certain cases.

C Licences

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the average monthly increase in C licences during 1948.

Mr. Callaghan: Eight thousand six hundred net.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the number of C licences issued during 1948, the number outstanding, and the number of C licence operators at 31st December, 1948, and at the latest available date.

Mr. Callaghan: The net number of additional vehicles for which C licences were issued during 1948 was 103,365. I do not know the number of outstanding applications but it is small. The total number of C licence operators was 311,811 with 590,516 vehicles at 31st December, 1948, and 315,279 with 597,698 vehicles at the end of January, 1949.

Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that the number of C licences has increased during 1948 in the same proportion as during 1947, can my hon. Friend inform me whether his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has completed his exhaustive inquiry, which he promised last June, into the cause of the increase, and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. Callaghan: That seems to be another Question.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: In view of the lack of any assurance being given so far to this last remaining freedom in the transport world, may we have an assurance from the Government that they will resist this attack on the C licence holder?

Mr. Callaghan: The Question asked for the number of C licences.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Woolwich Arsenal (Miss Prouse)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Supply why Miss E. Prouse, a grade 3 temporary clerk at Woolwich Arsenal, has been dismissed.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): Miss E. Prouse has not been dismissed, but told that she is considered to come within the scope of the Prime Minister's statement of 15th March, 1948. In accordance with the usual procedure, she has been placed on special leave with pay pending a final decision.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say what are the allegations against her, and at the same time whether it is proposed to offer her alternative employment in some other Department?

Mr. Strauss: The allegation, which she has admitted, was that she is a member of the Communist Party; and she was working in an establishment where a great deal of secret work was taking place. If I give my verdict against tier, every effort will be made to offer her alternative employment.

Raw Materials Controls

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Supply if he will give a list of the controls now exercised by his Department in the licensing of manufacturers and the purchase, acquisition, and allocation of raw materials, respectively.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the answer so circulated give a comprehensive picture of the controls now exercised by the Ministry?

Mr. Strauss: I think that the hon. Member will find my answer fairly comprehensive. If he requires further information, perhaps he will be good enough to put down a further Question.

Following is the answer:

Manufacturers need licences from my Department to produce certain electrical appliances listed in the schedule to the Electrical Appliances (Control of Manufacture and Supply) Order, 1942 (S.R. & O. No. 1453 of 1942), and six classes of engineering machinery, plant and appliances listed in paragraph 1 of the Machinery, Plant, and Appliances (General) (No. 20) Order, 1948 (S.I. No. 2528 of 1948). Even within this restricted field many items are covered by open general licence.

Raw materials controls are limited to non-ferrous and light metals, and iron and steel. My Department is the sole purchaser of virgin copper, lead and zinc, and controls the acquisition of these metals in the form of ores, concentrates and scrap, as well as in their virgin form. Only the allocation of lead is strictly controlled. All tin metal produced in the United Kingdom is purchased by my Department and sold to the manufacturers. Similarly all virgin aluminium and virgin aluminium alloy produced in or imported into the United Kingdom, apart from a small quantity for export, is purchased and sold to the fabricators. The acquisition, disposal, treatment, use and consumption of iron and steel, and the principal ores from which they are produced are controlled, and also the acquisition and disposal of iron and steel scrap.

Motorcar Exports

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply whether in view of the fact that the system known in the motor industry as "Completely Knocked Down," by which unassembled cars are exported for assembly abroad, is causing unemployment among motor workers in Britain and fostering future competition from those countries which are now building up their own motor industries, he will take the necessary action to regulate such trade.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the motor industry is exporting as many assembled cars as possible, and exports them unassembled only when it is necessary to obtain entry into the markets concerned.

Mr. Edelman: While recognising the difficulties described by my right hon. Friend, is it not the case that only last week 250 motor assemblers were declared redundant in Coventry? Is it not clear that the more motorcars sent abroad unassembled, the greater amount of unemployment there will be among British assembly workers?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. Every effort is made to export as many assembled cars as possible. I understand that the people to whom my hon. Friend refers were declared redundant last week for a different cause, namely, a temporary difficulty in the tractor production of a certain firm.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the tractor production to which he has referred is an entirely separate case, and the case to which I referred concerns Fisher and Ludlow, who are concerned with making motor bodies?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman throw any light on the name of the system and tell us what it means?

Mr. Strauss: I cannot throw much light on the origin of these words, but it means exporting unassembled cars which are assembled in the importing country.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Will the Minister bear in mind that where it is not possible to export assembled motorcars, it is much better to export them knocked down than not to export them at all?

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Supply if he will give an assurance that the supply of cars for the home market will not be increased while motor manufacturers are unable to obtain sufficient steel for export purposes.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: There is no intention to increase the supply of cars to the home market at the expense of exports.

Stores Disposal, Egypt (Accounts)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply when full accounts of the British Stores Disposals Mission in Egypt will be published.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The necessary material for the preparation of full accounts is not available. The original cost to the Services of the stores disposed of as surplus could be computed only with a quite unreasonable expenditure of time and labour, and would in many cases bear no relation whatever to their present value in any market.

Mr. Erroll: Is no statement of accounts to be issued at all?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. The normal statement of accounts will be issued. It is a very full one, but it does not give the figures which the hon. Member requires.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say when?

Mr. Strauss: In the normal annual returns of my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Oxwich Castle, Gower

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that Oxwich Castle, Gower, is to be partially demolished; why his Department will not take over the castle as an ancient monument; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): Oxwich Castle consists partly of ruins and partly of an occupied farmhouse. The ruins are in a dangerous condition, and consent was given, with the concurrence of the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales, to the demolition of certain wall tops only, which was necessary to avoid danger to the occupants of the farmhouse. To preserve the whole extent of the ruins would involve very substantial difficulty and expense.

Building Licences

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Works what was the amount for which building licences were issued in 1948 or the nearest convenient period, for churches and church premises; what was the corresponding figure in respect of places of amusement, sport and entertainment; and what were the respective quantities of steel involved.

Mr. Key: I regret that statistics are not kept separately for these classes of cases.

Building Workers, Birmingham

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Works how many building trade operatives there are in the City of Birmingham; and how many of these operatives are engaged in building houses, both for the municipality and private enterprise.

Mr. Key: The number of building and civil engineering operatives employed by contractors in the City of Birmingham at the end of January, 1949, was estimated to be 15,500. Of these approximately 1,500 were employed on building new houses.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that I have figures, given to me within the last three days, of the number of building workers actually engaged on house building? Is the Minister satisfied that less than 25 per cent. of building trade operatives in Birmingham should


be engaged on house building; and why are other people on work of an unnecessary character?

Mr. Key: So far as the employment of building workers on housing work is concerned, much of that depends on the exercise of their power by the local authorities in granting licences for other housing work.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

New Commons Chamber (Benches)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that the specimen bench, of the type intended for use in the rebuilt House of Commons, is, in several respects, less convenient and less comfortable than the benches in the present Chamber; and if he will take steps to ascertain the opinion of hon. Members generally before approving it.

Mr. Key: It is my intention to consult the Advisory Committee of Members before the type of bench to be installed in the new Chamber of the House is finally settled.

Mr. Driberg: When my right hon. Friend is considering this matter, will he bear in mind that the rather high wooden top to the back of this bench will prevent him and his successors, and other right hon. Gentlemen, from leaning back, as is their wont, in dreamy meditation during the speeches of back benchers?

Mr. Key: Most certainly, Sir. These and other matters that have been brought to my attention as the result of the exhibit of the type of bench will all be given due consideration.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the objections held by many hon. Members to the type of colouring of the benches?

Brigadier Head: Will the Minister assure us that the Members of the Advisory Committee represent the physical types and shapes of Members of this House?

Mr. Key: I think that if I gave the names of the Advisory Committee, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be satisfied.

Westminster Hall (Repairs)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Works what is the estimated cost of the repairs to the roof of Westminster Hall, and if the work was put out to tender before it was decided to employ direct labour.

Mr. Key: The cost is estimated to be £25,000. Part of the work, to the value of £6,000, was put out to tender, but the repairs to the actual timber of the roof are being carried out by directly employed carpenters in accordance with the Ministry's policy for the maintenance of historic buildings.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it is taking almost as long to repair this roof as it is to build the new House of Commons?

Mr. Key: The replacement of timber of this sort is a very delicate piece of work in a construction of this kind. We do not want to do any injury to such a building if we can possibly avoid it.

Mr. Piratin: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the men on the job were prepared to accept a bonus scheme as a. result of which the rate of progress could have been speeded up, and could he not see his way to accept that proposition?

Mr. Key: No, Sir. It is much better that the job should go on in the way in which it is going, in order to get satisfactory service in the end.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (WAR CRIME TRIALS)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many persons in the British zone of Germany have now been tried for war crimes or crimes against humanity; how many of these have been acquitted, how many sentenced to death, how many sentenced to life imprisonment, and how many to shorter terms of imprisonment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): As the answer is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Fletcher: Can the Minister say when it is expected that these trials will be brought to an end?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps I could have notice of that question.

Following is the answer:


1. War crimes.



Persons charged before military tribunals with crimes against the laws and usages of war
937


Acquitted
260


Sentenced to death
230


Sentenced to life imprisonment
24


Sentenced to shorter terms of imprisonment
423


2. Crimes against Humanity.



(a) Persons charged before Control Commission courts with crimes committed against Allied nationals
148


Acquitted
88


Sentenced to death
10


Sentenced to life imprisonment
nil


Sentenced to shorter terms of imprisonment
50


(b) Persons charged before German courts with crimes committed against German nationals or stateless persons
2,180


Acquitted
866


Sentenced to death
4


Sentenced to life imprisonment
nil


Sentenced to shorter terms of imprisonment
1,249


Fined
61

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (TRADE UNION ORDINANCE)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the widespread opposition in the Sudan to the Trade Union Ordinance of 1948; and what steps does he propose to take to see that the provisions objected to are withdrawn.

Mr. Mayhew: I am aware that certain elements in the Sudan have criticised this ordinance, and that this criticism culminated in a one-day protest strike on 15th March. A full explanation of the provisions of the ordinance has since been given to its critics. The ordinance is, in fact, in accordance with the best trade union practice in democratic countries, and I understand that the British Trades Union Congress consider it to be fair and worthy of acceptance by the Sudanese.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say whether this prevents the formation of

large unions by breaking them down into small local unions?

Mr. Mayhew: I can only say that it is fully approved by the T.U.C. I believe that point is fully covered.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUSSELS TREATY (CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL'S MEETING)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the nature of the proposals made by the United States of America to National Defence Council and Economic Co-operation Administration at the meeting of Foreign and Finance Ministers on 14th and 15th March; and what was the attitude of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mayhew: The National Defence Council and the Economic Co-operation Administration are both governmental bodies of the United States. Neither of them was represented at the meeting of the Brussels Treaty Consultative Council on 14th and 15th March, or made any proposals to the Consultative Council.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a usually reliable newspaper has stated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name."]—"The Scotsman" has stated that the American Government have suggested that we shall have to increase our armaments above the sum mentioned in the Defence Estimates; and is the Minister aware that this newspaper has stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the suggestion? Can the hon. Gentleman throw any light on the incident?

Mr. Mayhew: If the hon. Member's first Question was drafted on the report of "The Scotsman," the paper has not lived up to its usual reputation for reliability.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUENOS AIRES TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how often, since 14th March, the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires has contacted the Argentine Government on the subject of compensation for British shareholders in the Buenos Aires Transport


Corporation; what reply he has received from the Argentine Government; and whether he has made clear to the Argentine Government that if discussions on this matter are not opened before the liquidation of assets date, namely, 12th April, it will have a definite bearing on the new trade agreement negotiations.

Mr. Mayhew: As to the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. Member on previous occasions. As to the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Ambassador has raised the question of adequate compensation for the British shareholders during the course of the current trade agreement negotiations. I am not in a position to forecast what the outcome will be.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that the Ambassador must be seeing these Ministers almost every day in connection with the trade agreements, can he not ask for a polite reply—for some kind of reply—about whether they intend to open negotiations or not?

Mr. Mayhew: I can only say that this has been raised during the negotiations. I do not think that while the negotiations are on I should te the hands of the Ambassador in any way.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he intends to make to the request of the Government of the United States of America for additional British expenditure beyond the limit of £759 million of the 1949 Defence Estimates, to qualify for the receipt of equipment under the Mutual Aid Bill.

Mr. Mayhew: No such request has been received.

Mr. Hughes: Are we to assume that absolutely no intimation has been made to His Majesty's Government from the U.S.A. that we may have to increase our armaments expenditure as the result of the Atlantic Pact?

Mr. Mayhew: We have received no request. I think that my hon. Friend is thoroughly misinformed on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — VEGETABLE IMPORTS (POLICY)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Prime Minister what steps it is proposed to take to ensure co-ordination between the Ministers of Food and Agriculture regarding vegetable imports; and if he will indicate the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to these foreign imports.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): There is already full co-ordination between the two Departments. Our policy seeks to ensure that as far as possible there shall be a full supply of fresh vegetables at reasonable prices at all times of the year. Home production averages about 3 million tons a year and supplies the bulk of our needs, but has to be supplemented by some 400,000 tons of imported produce.

Mr. Gooch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been considerable ploughing in of valuable horticultural crops due, it is thought, to foreign imports on a scale which is not justified; further, while the Government's general agricultural policy has not only given security but immense satisfaction, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the present undermining of the horticultural industry by foreign imports will be given the urgent attention that it calls for?

The Prime Minister: There is no undermining. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] There is no undermining. Any Government has to consider both the rights of the producers here and the demands of the consumers: It is always difficult to calculate exactly in advance what will be the supply. It depends upon the weather. Even right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot plan entirely without having regard to the fact that the weather is not under the control either of this Government or of any other Government. If the Government do not take steps to see that there is an adequate supply, and there is a shortage, then at once the Government are condemned for not being foresighted enough in that direction. If, on the other hand, there is a surplus, the Government are hit from the other side. Inevitably, there is some overlapping.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleague the


Minister of Agriculture, who will tell him that in the main case which has given rise to this Question—the Anglo-Netherlands Agreement—the accredited leaders of the horticultural industry, for whom his colleague often tries to speak, first heard of the terms of the agreement, the dates of imports, the volume of imports and the importing countries, from the public Press?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the hon. Member would have put that question to my right hon. Friend. I have been in full consultation with him on this matter.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases during the year 1949 the anticipated home crop plus anticipated imports already arranged for are in excess of maximum estimated consumption, and will he look into cases of that kind which seem to give evidence of lack of sufficient consideration?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will remember that trade agreements have to be made for periods often in advance of when they will be implemented and sometimes, in order to get necessary things, we have to import certain other things which we do not want. It is quite impossible to bring the matter down to such a fine point.

Commander Agnew: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's present policy of granting open licences for the importation of foreign broccoli is actually causing a decrease in the acreage of broccoli planted for next autumn and winter, and is that the result he desires to bring about?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would put that question to the Minister of Agriculture. I am afraid that I cannot carry in my mind all the details about the broccoli crop.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Might I press the right hon. Gentleman about his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)? Surely, there is nobody except the right hon. Gentleman who can give a decision as between these two Ministries? Is it not true that the fact remains that there is no co-ordination at all, and that the Minister of Agriculture encourages the horticulturists of this country to produce

more vegetables throughout the land and, at the same time, without any knowledge at all, an agreement is signed which, to give one example, extends the importation of onions to more than the whole consumption of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. There is, of course, full consultation between these Ministries. The hon. and gallant Member will remember that in the previous year there were violent complaints all over the country of the shortage of onions. Therefore, provision had to be made in advance for the importation of onions. It happened that the following year was an extraordinarily good year for root crops and onions, hence the other thing happened.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman said that in these trade agreements we sometimes have to take things we do not want in order to get the things we do want. Are we to understand that these imports of vegetables are in fact things we do not want and that the unfortunate producer in this country is having to pay for the other things that we do want?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I was pointing out that in these trade agreements sometimes we make agreements ahead, and some things have to be bought. Naturally, this is in advance of any possible knowledge of what the crops may be. Therefore, we might at times get gluts.

Mr. Driberg: Will not this problem be at least partly solved, in the interests of producers and consumers alike, when the marketing and distribution of home produce has been rationalised?

The Prime Minister: indicated assent.

Sir Ian Fraser: Is not the whole point of this policy to time imports so that they do not interfere with the best weeks of the home-grown crop, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that these trade agreements are not so firm as to take the discretion out of the hands of the people running the scheme, so that they can keep the timing right?

The Prime Minister: That is exactly what is done.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTIVITY

Mr. Erroll: asked the Lord President of the Council what is the expected cost of the Committee on Industrial Productivity and its panels during the current year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I have been asked to reply. As I explained on 24th March, no precise estimate is possible of the cost of the Committee on Industrial Productivity and its Panels. It is particularly difficult to forecast future expenditure, but, assuming the continuance of the Committee on its present basis, it looks as though the cost during 1949 will be of the order of £6,000.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the importance of the work of this Committee, is the right hon. Gentleman sure that this sum of money is quite adequate?

Mr. Whiteley: Yes, Sir, to meet the present situation, I think it is. There may be developments later on, when we shall have to deal with the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLD COMMITTEE (REPORT)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Attorney-General if he is able to announce when the Departmental Committee's interim report on business rents will be available.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) on 14th March, 1949, and to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) on 18th March, 1949.

Mr. Skeffington: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are many thousands of small business people who are wondering whether this report will ever be published in time for it to be implemented?

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: We have been told that the report is coming and that the Committee will produce it as soon as they can, but cannot my right hon. and learned Friend definitely ask the Committee to expedite the report?

The Attorney-General: The interim report of the Committee was presented a few days ago. As the problems involved are of great complication and difficulty, it requires a little consideration before it is published. The final report on leasehold premises generally is still the subject of consideration by the Committee and the matter is one the implications of which are very wide and involve questions of both law and fact. I have no doubt that the Committee have taken notice of the Questions asked from time to time and will present their report as soon as it is possible so to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Veterinary Surgeons, Wales

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many veterinary surgeons are located in each of the counties in Wales; and what is the percentage of farms and holdings covered.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): As the reply to the first part involves a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not aware that any farmers in Wales are unable to obtain the services of a veterinary surgeon.

Mr. Harold Davies: Does not my right hon. Friend think the time has now come to review entirely the National Veterinary Service, and will he get into consultation—

Mr. Speaker: That is another question; this Question only asks how many veterinary surgeons there are in Wales.

Following is the table:


Number of practising veterinary surgeons resident in each county in Wales (including Monmouth):


Anglesey
…
…
…
6


Brecon
…
…
…
4


Caernarvon
…
…
…
9


Cardigan
…
…
…
13


Carmarthen
…
…
…
26


Denbigh
…
…
…
18


Flint
…
…
…
7


Glamorgan
…
…
…
37


Merioneth
…
…
…
4


Monmouth
…
…
…
10


Montgomery
…
…
…
10


Pembroke
…
…
…
13


Radnor
…
…
…
1


Total
…
…
…
158

In addition to those in private practice, there are 48 veterinary surgeons in Wales, including 44 in the Ministry's service, holding full-time veterinary appointments.

County Committees (Expenditure)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the fact that for 1947–48 the excess of expenditure over receipts of agricultural executive committees was about £13¼ million, of which £8¼ million was incurred in machinery and labour services and £3½ million on administration, he will now close down the agricultural executive committees, or take steps to put them on an economic basis.

Mr. T. Williams: I am certainly not prepared to consider abolishing the county agricultural executive committees set up under the Agriculture Act, 1947, which have many important duties to perform. I am, however, taking every practicable step to reduce as far as possible, having regard to the needs of the agricultural expansion programme, the excess of expenditure over receipts, including the deficits on machinery, labour and other services.

Sir W. Smithers: Why should committees whose incompetence has been so obviously shown and whose working has been adversely commented upon by learned judges be in a position to direct or dispossess farmers whose incompetence has not been proved?

Mr. Williams: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's designation of incompetence, and I suggest to him that he read the Conservative Party's Agricultural Charter.

Experimental Farms

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture who has been or is to be appointed to manage the 18 experimental farms; what is the respective acreage and cost of these farms; and by what method these appointments will be made.

Mr. T. Williams: These farms will be under the direction of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. Each will be in the charge of a member of that service as farm director, who will have the assistance of an advisory committee

under the chairmanship of a leading agriculturist and including some farmers among its members. A working farm manager will normally be appointed under the farm director to take charge of farming operations. The acreages will vary widely according to the type of farm. The six farms already acquired vary from 200 to 1,070 acres. The average cost of the four that have been purchased is some £35,000. A fifth farm has been leased, and in the case of the other acquisitions the purchase price has been referred for arbitration.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister try to avoid what happened in the war, when incompetent farmers who could not make their own farms pay became civil servants, and were able to give orders to men who were making their own farms pay? May I have an answer?

Mr. Williams: I think the question is so far removed from the truth that it does not call for a reply.

Sir T. Dugdale: Will the accounts of these farms be made public in due course, and, especially in view of their work, will the capital sum per acre be made public, so that farmers may compare like with like?

Mr. Williams: I suppose the accounts of the demonstration farms will be made public, but I am sure that the hon. Baronet will be aware of the fact that demonstration farms are not necessarily run on an economic basis.

Captain Crookshank: When the Minister says that he supposes that the accounts will be made public, does he not mean that it is his business to make sure?

Mr. Williams: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that these accounts will be made public.

Devon Close-Wool Sheep

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that numbers of Devon close-wool sheep are reared on Exmoor; and if he can arrange for these sheep to be qualified for subsidy when reared on hill farms.

Mr. T. Williams: I am well aware that Devon close-wools are kept on Exmoor, but I do not consider that this breed is sufficiently hardy to qualify for hill sheep subsidy.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this breed is doing very well on Exmoor, and may I ask him to look at this matter again with a view to encouraging increased numbers, which would result in increased supplies of mutton?

Mr. Williams: I have already looked into the matter, and I am advised that this particular breed is not sufficiently hardy to live on some hills.

Mr. Collins: Will my right hon. Friend consult the farmers on Exmoor who are interested in this breed?

Mr. Williams: We have consulted them already.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister introduce the grid system on Exmoor, which will multiply the sheep population by thousands?

Machinery and Equipment Losses

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the fact that the accounts for 1947–48 of the agricultural executive committees show losses of £298 lost or stolen to agricultural executive committees and the Women's Land Army, £11,611 for machinery and implements lost, £995 for agricultural executive committee stores and equipment stolen and £1,048 for a stocktaking deficiency of bicycles, he will state what steps are being taken to detect and prosecute those responsible.

Mr. T. Williams: It is the duty of agricultural executive committees and the Women's Land Army to take all practicable steps to prevent losses of machinery and equipment. They are under instruction to report thefts to the police, with a view to detection and prosecution where possible, and to take suitable disciplinary action against the individuals concerned where losses are caused by negligence.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the Minister aware that this petty thieving and purloining is inevitable under State control, and that if it had happened on a private farm the decent British farmer would have sacked the persons concerned?

Mr. Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is too much private enterprise here and there.

Small Farmers (Machinery)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that the Government's policy was for the county agricultural executive committees throughout the country to relinquish their machinery depots, and since a large number of small cultivators have not funds to buy a complete range of implements to enable them to carry on their cultivation, what alternative arrangements are being prepared so as to ensure that the fullest possible use is made of the cultivation of the soil by the smallholders throughout the country.

Mr. T. Williams: No general decision has been taken to discontinue the machinery services operated by county agricultural executive committees. The services are not being withdrawn where there is a sufficient demand from small farmers who cannot afford to buy the necessary machines and who cannot get the work done in any other way.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that many of these machinery depots have been far from satisfactory in the past? Would it not be a good thing to have a completely new scheme to enable all small farmers throughout the country to acquire the necessary machinery with which to increase food production?

Mr. Williams: Perhaps it would not be out of place if the hon. Member were to consult with his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) in order to make up their minds whether they want a machinery service or not.

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to treat this matter with all seriousness, since it is a matter which vitally affects food production?

Mr. Scollan: May I ask the Minister if it would not be wise to go into the question of setting up county servicing depots for farmers in the various counties, which I think is a feasible proposition, and one that ought to be carried out?

Mr. Williams: We have county servicing depots, and all the time we are anxious that they should be supplemented by private servicing depots, where they can be established. While we are very anxious that there should be a machinery service as long as it is necessary, it is our desire that private enterprise should


step in to provide this servicing for small farmers where they cannot provide it themselves.

Horticultural Industry

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BALDWIN:

57. To ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the anxiety amongst farmers as to the future of the horticultural industry caused by recent trade agreements, he will make a statement as to the Government's long-term policy.

Mr. Baldwin: On a point of Order. May I have your guidance in regard to this Question, Mr. Speaker? In view of the alarm in the horticultural industry by reason of the trade agreements which have been made, I addressed this Question to the Prime Minister, since it involves a Government decision and not a Departmental one.

Mr. T. Williams: The reply to the Question is that when the Agriculture Act, 1947, was under consideration by this House, I referred to horticultural products and said:
I want to make it clear that it is the Government's intention that the general objective in Clause I shall apply to the industry as a whole, and that they fully recognise that other means of obtaining this object for these other products must be devised."—[OFFIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 631.]
I have nothing to add to that statement.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the leaders of the horticultural industry and assure them that the intention is not to make trade agreements for the import into this country of produce which we can still grow ourselves at reasonable cost?

Mr. Williams: We are frequently in consultation with the leaders of the horticultural industry.

Mr. Turton: Does not the Minister consider that when, through faulty guesswork on the part of his colleague, the Minister of Food, farmers have to plough in their crops, he ought to have a policy for compensating them?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member must be aware, as my right hon. Friend the

Prime Minister said, that no Minister or Ministers can ever cater for weather conditions. He will also be aware that last year was an abnormal one, and that if in 1948 we had obtained the same amount of produce as we had normally obtained for a number of years, there would have been no surplus vegetables in this country.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Prime Minister that he is being compelled to accept certain imports which he does not require?

Mr. Williams: My right hon. Friend did not say that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of all that is happening to the horticultural industry, is the right hon. Gentleman still on speaking terms with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food?

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any attempt at specialisation in production between Great Britain and the foreign countries from whom we import horticultural produce?

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Evesham growers are suffering exceptional hardships?

Farrowing Sows (Rations)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will re-establish the arrangements, suspended under the extended rationing scheme, whereby county agricultural committees were permitted to establish special farrowing registrations.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. Revised arrangements for extending the issue of rations for farrowing sows are being worked out and will be announced in the near future.

Livestock Prices

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the 1949–50 prices of fat stock, sheep and pigs recently announced are based on the present prices of feedingstuffs, and if, through further removal of subsidies, prices of feeding-stuffs are increased before that date, this part of the February price review will be revised.

Mr. T. Williams: The recently announced 1949–50 prices of fat cattle, sheep and pigs take full account of the forthcoming increase in prices of feeding-stuffs.

Mr. Turton: Does the Minister realise that if that is the fact it gives no incentive for livestock production, and that the whole 4s. 6d. per cwt. increase is wiped out? Will he reconsider the matter in view of the present meat ration?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member is aware that the National Farmers' Union approved the new prices with the full knowledge of a revision in feedingstuff prices.

Tobacco Production

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will devote a small part of the resources of the new experimental farms to the tobacco plant with a view to the further development of types suitable to our climate.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. I am afraid that the available facilities will be fully utilised on urgent and important food production problems.

Sir I. Fraser: In considering the importance of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the importance of dollars, which contribute so much and in so many ways to our food?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, but my immediate responsibility is the production of food, and I do not think that in the circumstances we can allow our technicians to devote themselves to the production of tobacco in this country.

Pigs (Feedingstuffs)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the present size of the meat ration, he will now increase the quantities of feeding-stuffs made available for the breeding, rearing and fattening of pigs and relax existing restrictions so as to encourage the production of pork and bacon in this country.

Mr. T. Williams: Supplies of feeding-stuffs in sight are not sufficient to allow of any general increase in rations for pigs at present. But the extended scheme of rationing for pigs or poultry, introduced

last October, is being reopened (for applications) and rations will be available to new applicants from 1st May. There are no restrictions on the keeping of pigs, apart from those imposed by the shortage of feedingstuffs.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman get in touch with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, with whom he says he is on speaking terms, and get increased quantities of feedingstuffs brought to this country so that we can have more pork and bacon?

Mr. Williams: As the hon. Member is aware, I do occasionally meet my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the Minister say when he expects to have increased feedingstuffs in order to increase pig breeding?

Mr. Williams: That depends on so many factors that I could not hazard a guess.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FORCES, AQABA

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the report recently made by the Acting Mediator on Palestine to the United Nations on the sending of troops by His Majesty's Government to Aqaba; what is contained in that report; and what reply has been sent by His Majesty's Government to the United Nations organisation in respect thereof.

Mr. Mayhew: In view of the length of the reply, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman say at this stage whether it is not a fact that the accounts of alleged incidents on the borders of Transjordan and Israel are highly exaggerated? Is it not also a fact that Dr. Bunche has declared that there is no cause at all for alarm, and will my hon. Friend please take steps to stop these false rumours?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not know to what particular accounts my hon. Friend is referring, but if he will read my answer, perhaps it will help him.

Following is the reply:

I am making available in the Library of the House the conclusions of the report telegraphed by the Acting Mediator to the United Nations on 22nd March and circulated there as Document S/1295 of 23rd March. It will be seen that these conclusions refer to the reinforcement of British Forces at Aqaba as a fact and without criticism. The British Force at Aqaba is there at the request of the Transjordan Government, a request with which His Majesty's Government were obliged to comply under the Anglo-Transjordan Treaty. It has recently been reinforced in view of the advance of Israeli forces to the Gulf of Aqaba, so that it should be capable of fulfilling its mission in any circumstances. This mission is to defend the Port of Aqaba, and to support Transjordan in case her territory should be attacked.

The Transjordan Government had, on 2nd January, sufficient reason for invoking the Anglo-Transjordan Treaty and requesting the dispatch of a British Force to Aqaba, after the series of military advances by Israeli Forces in recent months and violations of the true resolution of the Security Council. These began with the Israeli advance in the northern Negeb on 15th October. Later in October, the Israeli Forces seized Western Galilee, which was originally allotted to the Arabs by the United Nations, and thence invaded Lebanese territory, where they have hitherto occupied frontier areas. On 22nd December, a further Israeli offensive against Egypt started, resulting in incursions into Egyptian territory. Finally, shortly after the Israeli-Egyptian armistice was concluded, Israeli Forces moved southward to the Gulf of Aqaba. This series of forward moves by the Israeli Government, and their contravention of the injunctions of the Security Council, gave the Transjordan Government sufficient cause to fear Israeli intentions in regard to their southern frontier.

Criticism that the dispatch and reinforcement of the British Force at Aqaba is contrary to the Palestine Truce is presumably based on the third paragraph of the Security Council resolution of 29th May, which calls upon all Governments and authorities concerned to undertake that they will not introduce fighting personnel into.Palestine and the Arab States

during the cease-fire. I am making the text of this resolution available to the House. It cannot reasonably be supposed that this resolution meant that the United Kingdom, which was not in any way engaged in the conflict, was debarred from reinforcing or altering the composition of its Forces in the Middle East; or that the United Kingdom should not supply its own Forces with such arms and ammunition as they might require. Movements between the British Forces stationed at various points in the Middle East have, in fact, been freely carried out without comment or criticism from the Acting Mediator or the United Nations. Moreover, it has been made clear that the task of the Aqaba Force is strictly defensive. The Transjordan Government have requested His Majesty's Government to assist them with patrols along the frontier near Aqaba, and His Majesty's Government have been considering this request. They hope, however, that a successful conclusion to the cease-fire negotiations at present being carried on between Israel and Transjordan would render such action unnecessary. So far from the presence of a defensive British Force at Aqaba impeding negotiations between Israel and Transjordan, His Majesty's Government are convinced that it is only the presence of this Force which has stabilised the situation and enabled the negotiations to proceed as far as they have now done. With reference to the last part of the Question, I would add that a statement on the foregoing lines is being communicated to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (UNITED NATIONS)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the intention of the United States Government to support the Spanish application for membership of the United Nations organisation, he will give an assurance that his policy towards Spain remains the same as declared on previous occasions.

Mr. Mayhew: I am not aware that Spain has made application for membership of the United Nations. The policy of His Majesty's Government remains unchanged in this matter.

Mr. Piratin: Am I to understand that the policy of His Majesty's Government remains exactly what it was at the time their representatives supported the United Nation's resolution on this matter in 1946?

Mr. Mayhew: A full statement on policy was made in an adjournment Debate a few weeks ago, and I have nothing to add to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SPLINTS)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is a shortage in the Cheltenham area of splints recommended by orthopaedic surgeons and, as this is causing concern, if he will take steps to increase the supply in the near future.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): Effective steps have already been taken to improve the supply of appliances. In the particular case of which the hon. Member sent my right hon. Friend details, the original order went astray, but the appliance has now been deliverd.

Mr. Lipson: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the delay in providing these splints may affect the child's whole future?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 87.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[3.29 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lipson, D. L.


Alter, A. C (Bosworth)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McAdam, W.


Alpass, J. H
Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGhee, H G


Attewell, H. C.
Farthing, W. J
Mack, J. D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Ayles, W. H.
Follick, M.
McLeavy, F.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Foot, M M
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bacon, Miss A.
Forman, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H


Barstow, P. G
Freeman, J (Watford)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Barton, C.
Gaitskell, Rt Hon H T N
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Benson, G.
Gibson, C. W
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A


Berry, H
Glanville, J E. (Console)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Blackburn, A. R.
Goodrich, H E.
Mayhew, C. P.


Blenkinsop, A.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Mellish, R. J.


Bramall, E A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)
Monslow, W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gunter, R. J.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Guy. W H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. E.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.


Bruce, Maj. D. W T.
Hamilton, Lieut-Col R
Murray, J. D.


Burden, T W.
Hardman, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Noel-Baker, RI. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Byers, Frank
Harrison, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Callaghan, James
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Parker, J


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hicks, G.
Parkin, B. T.


Clause, W. S.
Holman, P
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Cocks, F. S.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Collins, V. J.
Houghton, A L N. D.
Pearson, A.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Peart, T. F.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N W)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Piratin, P.


Crawley, A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Dagger, G.
Hynd, J B. (Attecliffe)
Popplewell, E.


Daines, P.
Irving, W J (Tottenham, N.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Janner, B.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jay, D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jager, G. (Winchester)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jenkins, R. H.
Randall, H. E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Reeves, J.


Deer, G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


da Freitas, Geoffrey
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rhodes, H.


Dodds, N. N.
Kinley, J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lang, G.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lavers, S.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Royle, C.


Edelman, M.
Lever, N. H.
Scollan, T.




Segal, Dr. S
Swingler, S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Sharp, Granville
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Shurmer, P.
Thurtle, Ernest
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Timmons, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Simmons, C. J.
Tolley, L.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Skeffington, A. M.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hen. G.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Solley, L. J.
Wadsworth, G.
Willis, E.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wise, Major F. J.


Sparks, J. A.
Watkins, T. E.
Yates, V. F.


Stamford, W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)



Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Weitzman, D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Walls, P. L. (Faversham)
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Head, Brig. A. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bossom, A. C.
Hulbert, Whig-Cdr. N. J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Keeling, E. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Teeling, William


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


De Ia Bère, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Gaffbway)
Turton, R. H.


Dower, Cor A. V. G. (Penrith)
MacLeod, J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr, J. W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marlowe, A. A H.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Eccles, D. M.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)
Mellor, Sir J.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gammans, L. D.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.



George, Maj. Rt. Hn. C. Lloyd (P'ke)
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Niel, B. (Chester)
Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Before you call the individual Amendments on the Paper, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether, for the guidance of the House, if you would be good enough to indicate the sort of discussion which you think might properly take place? I gather that you are of the opinion that discussion on Clause 1 was fairly full in the Committee upstairs and that therefore any further discussion of the principles in Clause 1 should take place on Third Reading. As to Clauses 2 and 3, I wonder whether there might be a fairly wide discussion on any Amendment which you select, without going into detail. I think that course would meet the convenience of Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: So far as the new Clauses are concerned, I shall select the third one on the Order Paper—(General Regulations to be subject to annulment), which I think is the most important, although it was debated at length upstairs. I also consider that discussion on Clause 1 should be taken on Third Reading, as that Clause was fully debated, as were the proposed Amendments to that Clause.
I am prepared to allow a wide Debate on the first Amendment to Clause 2 and on the first Amendment to Clause 3. I think that will cover all the Amendments on that page of the Order Paper, including the Minister's Amendment, because there will be a fairly wide Debate. I then propose that we should go right down to the bottom of the next page to the Amendment in Clause 3, page 3, line 44, to insert "to which this Section applies." That will be a separate Amendment.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, that you would allow a wide Debate on the first Amendment to Clause 2, that is, to leave out Clause 2.

Mr. Hudson: No, I think Mr. Speaker was referring to the actual Amendment, in line 23, to insert a new proviso.

Mr. Gaitskell: Then I understood that we should have a fairly wide Debate on the Amendments to Clause 3.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that apparently I did not make myself clear. I propose to omit the Amendments to leave out Clause 2 and Clause 3. Those Amendments are not usually accepted on Report stage. In Committee the Clauses were divided upon, on the Motion that they should stand part of the Bill. I was refering to the first Opposition Amendment in Clause 2, line 23, and the Amendment in Clause 3, to leave out, "or include terms which provide." I thought a discussion on those Amendments would cover all the Amendments on pages 1393 and 1394 of the Amendment Paper, except the last but one, in Clause 3, page 4, line 31, to insert subsection (5). Then in Clause 4 I shall select the following two Amendments: page 5, line 36, and page 6, line 9.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Might I ask whether on the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 23, which you have selected, it will be in Order to discuss all aspects of bunkering and foreign coal stations?

Mr. Speaker: I gather that in Committee there was some confusion on that matter, and therefore I thought it would clear the matter up if we had a fairly wide discussion on that Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have selected the third of the proposed new Clauses. The effect of this new Clause is very easy to explain—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot find the hon. Gentleman's name on the Order Paper as one of the movers of this new Clause. On Report it should be moved by somebody whose name is against the new Clause on the Paper.

New Clause.—(GENERAL REGULATIONS TO BE SUBJECT TO ANNULMENT.)

The powers conferred on the Minister of Fuel and Power by Section eighty-six of the principal Act as amended and extended by this Act to make general regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument by which such powers are exercised shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

So much of subsection (4) of the said Section eighty-six as is inconsistent with the provisions of this Section shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. McCorquodale.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McCorquodale: I beg formally to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The effect of this new Clause is quite easy to explain. It is to subject to the familiar procedure of the statutory instrument, regulations made under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and regulations made under the enlarged powers conferred on the Minister by the present Bill. Section 86 of the Act of 1911, which is the substance of the powers with which we are concerned, is an extremely important provision in as much as it permits the right hon. Gentleman to make regulations upon the all-important subject of safety in mines. The code of safety in our mines in this country is very largely governed by the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman makes, and those powers are conspicuously widened by Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill. What we desire to do, therefore, is to provide that those important regulations should be subjected to the same procedure as that to which other important regulations on other matters are subjected, and that is the essence of the case for this new Clause.
There are two major reasons why this is desirable, one of a certain constitutional importance and the second of considerable practical importance. The constitutional point is easily put. It is this. The provisions of Clause 9 provide that when the Minister makes these regulations he can retrospectively vary not only the regulations made under the 1911 Act but also certain provisions of the 1911 Act itself. That is to say, we are conferring upon him power to amend retrospectively an Act of Parliament and it would seem right, from the point of view of constitutional principle alone, that when this House is empowering a Minister of the Crown to alter an Act of Parliament, then what the right hon. Gentleman does in the exercise of that power should be subject to Parliamentary supervision and control. I do not think it is necessary to stress that point any further.
The practical point is, I think, of great importance. There can be few regulations made by a Minister of the Crown which are more important than those which the right hon. Gentleman will be empowered to make in this Bill, when read with the 1911 Act. It is literally

a case in which the lives and the limbs of a substantial number of our fellow citizens are directly concerned, and it would seem that if there be any matter upon which this House is entitled to demand that it should retain some degree of Parliamentary control over delegated legislation it is this. We are not even asking in this Clause for that same degree of Parliamentary control as is exercised over, as it seems to me, the much less important subject as to whether a particular town should have cinemas on Sundays. Where that is desired the procedure of the affirmative Resolution is required. In this matter we are asking only for the less compelling power of the negative procedure.
After all, we are asking only for the same procedure as that which exists, for example, in any case in which the Minister of Food decides to alter the points value of snoek. We are asking for no higher degree of control than is exercised in that case. It seems to me that if it is solemnly declared that if the Minister of Food wants to alter the points value for snoek this procedure should be called into play, then it is difficult to argue that, on a major matter of this sort, concerning the safety of life and limb, this House should not exercise even that very limited power.
From the proceedings during the Committee stage, I believe that at one time the Minister of Fuel and Power was himself not disinclined to accept this point of view. I am fortified in that assertion by what the right hon. Gentleman himself said in Committee:
We did in fact consider closely whether a change of this kind should be made, and I wish to explain why we decided that it should not be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 17th February, 1949; c. 531.]
The Minister then went on at some length—and I do not think I am misrepresenting him—to say that because regulations made under the Act of 1911 were not, and have not been since then, subject to this procedure, that was an argument for not introducing this procedure now.
I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt the attitude that what was right in 1911 is, because it was right then, necessarily right now. That is a somewhat surprising doctrine from a Socialist Minister of Fuel and Power and, in adopting that attitude, the right hon. Gentleman completely over-


looks the substantial change which has taken place in this aspect of the matter as a result of nationalisation. As a result of nationalisation we in this House have a greater responsibility for this industry than we ever had before, because, after all, we represent the community which now owns it. There is also the practical question: whereas in 1911 the State was something in the nature of a third party which could act as referee between employers and employed, now, as a result of nationalisation, the State is far more, and the executive Government is far more, closely connected with the ownership and the management and is therefore less fitted to play the part of an outside referee. That would seem to be a reason why this House, as representing the community as a whole, should have conferred upon it powers of control which may not have been considered necessary in the totally different circumstances of 1911.
3.45 p.m.
There was one other argument which was raised in the Debate on the Committee stage and with which, I think, it is easy to deal. It was objected by one or two hon. Members who represent mining divisions that if we adopt this procedure it might delay the enactment of adequate regulations. It is easy to deal with that argument by pointing out that the acceptance of this new Clause would not delay the making or the putting into effect of these regulations by a single day, because under the procedure which we envisage these regulations would take effect from the date when they were made, or the date expressed for their coming into effect, and they would continue in effect unless and until they were annulled by a. Motion in this House. There is no difficulty, therefore, to be envisaged from the point of view of delay.
On the other hand, I am perfectly certain that the power of this House to annul must have a wholly salutary effect upon the making of these regulations. It will cause the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate that any defect in them will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and to Parliamentary debate, and for that reason it seems that a useful stimulus will be given to the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers to make quite sure that these regulations are adequate for their purpose. I would stress this: in a serious

matter of this sort, a matter so important that I do not think it needs emphasis, is it right for this House completely to hand over control for the making of regulations concerning safety in an industry which the community itself now owns? Is it right to divorce the making of these regulations from adequate Parliamentary supervision?
I know perfectly well that under the procedure laid down in the 1911 Act and carried out since then there is machinery for consultation of one sort or another with various of the interests involved, and it is right that there should be that consultation, but I submit that no degree of consultation with outside organisations, however important, or with outside experts, however well-informed, should be allowed to take the place of the final sanction of Parliamentary control. If those consultations have taken place and if the outside interests have agreed with the regulations, that would be a very potent argument in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman in defending his regulations against a Motion to annul them; it would be a powerful and perhaps a compelling argument. But that is not an argument for depriving this House, and in particular hon. Members with a direct responsibility to mining constituents, of the right finally to decide upon these matters.
It seems to me that the general principle of all this control of delegated legislation has been the test of importance. If one applies that test to these regulations there can be only one answer: this is a matter of major importance and it is because we regard it as a matter of major importance, upon which this House simply cannot abdicate its responsibility, that we urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should reconsider the attitude he adopted in Committee and permit this House and hon. Members in all quarters of it to carry out their responsibility to their constituents of ensuring that only the best and most efficiently drafted regulations are, in fact, put into effect on this most vital matter.

Mr. Raikes: I am anxious to support the extremely lucid argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). We are dealing here with what is really a House of Commons matter beyond all else. We are asking


that these powers given to the Minister should be the subject of Prayer in the House of Commons. I know that some hon. Members feel that Prayers are sometimes rather inconvenient things when they come on late at night. It is no fault of the movers of this Clause that under the procedure of the House of Commons, Prayers do come on so late. I would remind the Government that when they are in Opposition—and that time may be nearer than some of them imagine—they will find that Prayer is a most valuable safeguard for the House of Commons whenever and wherever the possibility of Ministerial error arises. No one could suggest that these regulations dealing with safety are small or inconsiderable matters, and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the real test of whether a particular form of regulation should be subject to Prayer is the test of importance; and nothing could be more important than the safety and welfare of the people in the mines.
My hon. Friend dealt with what was, perhaps, the main argument made against us in this matter in Standing Committee, when he answered the Minister in regard to the 1911 Act. I need not repeat his argument. However, certain other suggestions were also made against this new Clause. One very astonishing one was that if we had the Prayer procedure in regard to these regulations, employers —in this case, presumably, mainly the National Coal Board—might be less inclined to grant the finance needed to press forward safety regulations, if they felt that such regulations would have to be considered by this House. I thought at the time that that was an unworthy argument, and I hope it is not to be repeated today. I am not one of the apologists for the National Coal Board, but I am convinced that that Board, if it felt that new regulations were necessary in order to improve safety conditions in the mines, would not be slow to act because the regulations might conceivably be prayed against when they were laid on the Table of the House of Commons. It is an argument which I never accepted, and one which, I am convinced, will carry no weight in any quarter of the House.
One further argument was adduced, and it was that the mineworkers' organisation not only did not ask for this safeguard but did not desire it. All I would

say in regard to that is that the duty of the House of Commons to safeguard itself against the Executive is not a matter for any other organisation: it is a matter for the House of Commons itself. I wonder very much whether the Minister, who, up to the present time, has proved himself adamant against the proposition contained in this Clause, really placed the thing before the mineworkers' representatives in its correct light. After all, this Clause is simply a round in the age-old struggle between the Executive and the Legislature.
We claim that the House of Commons should have the duty of safeguarding the position in relation to any major regulations made by a Minister. The Executive is always inclined to take the other view—that the safeguard is unnecessary, that everything will be all right, that they do not wish to delegate any further powers to the House of Commons. It is an argument we have heard ring down through history, very largely due to the fact that when one becomes a Minister one's mentality becomes slightly different from that of the ordinary private Member of the House of Commons. It does not, however, prove that one is right because one is sitting on the Treasury Bench. Suppose that the mineworkers' representatives were told that this safeguard cannot hold up safety regulations because the moment the regulations are passed, the moment they are laid on the Table of the House, they come into operation; would they then object to the safeguard?
This is not a form of regulation that would be prayed against on many occasions. Prayer is merely one additional safeguard that the House of Commons may have the final opportunity and the duty, if occasion warrants, to check a mistake by a Minister, or a mistake, perhaps, which it is very easy to make in the drafting of a statute when the draftsmen are overworked as they are in these days. No one could seriously object to such a safeguard. If it were not invoked for 30 or 40 years, I would, nevertheless support this new Clause because I believe profoundly that it is the duty of the House of Commons and its right, whenever it so desires, to debate any major regulations produced by any Minister of any party which affect the livelihood of vast masses of the people of this country.


For that reason I support this new Clause, and I hope that on the other side of the House also there will be voices in favour of the proper view that the House of Commons should check an undue increase of power by the Executive, whoever the Executive may be.

Mr. Tom Brown: I hope the Minister will not accept this Clause. The reason for my opposition to it is that we are very anxious that powers should be conceded to the Minister to bring in regulations concerning the safety and health of men in the pits as speedily as possible. Hon. Members opposite who were on the Standing Committee raised this matter then, and we pointed out to them then that our anxiety was that regulations should be brought in as speedily as possible because of the rapidly changing technique in the mining industry. As I said in Committee, there has been a change made with great rapidity, particularly in the last 10 or 20 years. We have travelled a long way from the old methods of winning coal—from what we call the pillar and stall work, the retreat wide work, and the long wall system, and many other systems. They have become out of date now. It is because of the urgent necessity of having new regulations that we ask that the Minister should have powers to make them.
4.0 p.m.
The Clause makes reference to a certain section in the principal Act of 1911. This House ought to remember, and I think that Members of the Opposition ought to remember, that no general Act of Parliament dealing with the mining industry has been placed on the Statute Book since 1911. Hon. Members opposite, from time to time, have put forward the claim that they are the friends of the miners and are interested in the safety and welfare of the miners. They were in power for more than 37 years, and they never instituted an Act of Parliament to safeguard the interests of the miners. Section 86 to which reference is made in the new Clause makes this statement:
The Secretary of State may by order make such general regulations for the conduct and guidance of the persons acting in the management of mines or employed in or about mines as may appear best calculated to prevent

dangerous accidents and to provide for the safety, health, convenience and proper discipline of the persons employed in or about mines.
That Clause was put into the 1911 Act in order to give the Secretary of State for Mines, as he then was, the powers to make regulations. If that was of paramount importance in 1911, it is equally of paramount importance today, in order that regulations may be brought forward by the Minister.
Complaint has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite about Parliament not having the last word. They will have the last word because Section 86 (4) gives those powers to this House. From time to time, when regulations are submitted by the Minister of Fuel and Power, Parliament will have the right to revoke them if there is anything wrong with them. What has happened in the past? It is as well to take a retrospective view. Since 1911, drawing on my memory, I believe that there have been 18 to 20codes made by the Secretary for Mines or the Minister of Fuel and Power. Within those codes, there were about 18 to 20 regulations. If we make a calculation, we discover that there have been approximately 400 regulations made covering the safety of the men in the pits, and I suggest that not one of those regulations has been prayed against by any Member of past Parliaments. Hon. Members come along today—

Sir John Mellor: Surely it was not competent for any hon. Member of this House to pray against regulations under the 1911 Act. Regulations had to be laid before Parliament, but they were not subject to annulment.

Mr. Brown: Section 86 (4) gave the power to do so. My complaint is that hon. Members opposite are now asking the House or the Minister to do something which, in the past, they have failed to do. I am putting forward the point of view as we see it in the pits. After all, that is where we have the most complaints and the most accidents. We are anxious that the Minister of Fuel and Power shall be given these powers, in the same way as the Secretary of State for Mines was given powers under Section 86 to bring in regulations to safeguard the health and safety of the men. That is all that we are anxious about. I think that it is now too late in the day


for Members of the Opposition to bring forward this new Clause. We are very anxious that the Minister should have these powers, and I hope that, in view of the urgency of this matter, the Minister will resist the new Clause.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that under the 1911 Act there was power to annul the regulations? I took the trouble to look up the Act just before this Debate, and, although I was unable to bring a copy with me, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although the regulations had to be laid before Parliament, there was no power of annulment.

Mr. Brown: Subsection (4) of Section 86 states:
An order made under this section shall be laid as soon as possible before both Houses of Parliament, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act,
Subsection (5) states:
An order made under this section may be revoked, altered, or added to by an order made in like manner and subject to the same provisions as the original order.

Sir J. Mellor: By the Minister, but not by a Prayer.

Mr. Brown: The Minister was in charge, and he was commissioned with the responsibility of seeing that the regulations had for their objective the safety and health of our men in the pits.

Colonel Lancaster: The same sort of confusion has arisen this afternoon as that which arose during the Committee stage of the Bill. Right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench made the same objection as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has made today, that our desire to have an opportunity of praying against these regulations would in some way affect the speed with which the Minister could issue regulations. Of course, nothing of the sort will occur; nor, indeed, is it the desire or purpose of Members on this side of the House that anything should be done to interfere with the Minister's desire to issue regulations with regard to safety, or to interfere with the speed with which they may be put into effect. In Committee, it was said that because hon. Members on this side had not previously objected to these regulations or desired to pray against them there was

no reason for this new Clause. The right hon. Gentleman instanced me in particular as not having raised an objection on this matter. I had very little time to do so between being elected to this Parliament and the termination of the war. Nevertheless, neither of those arguments seems very sound on this occasion.
What we desire to do is to introduce a Measure which will allow Parliament to have the last say on these matters. In desiring to do that, we are not asking for anything which will impede the Minister's powers to bring in regulations or the speed with which he can do so. As the hon. Member for Ince rightly pointed out, the changes which are occurring today in techniques and methods in the mining industry undoubtedly necessitate a whole host of regulations being brought in from time to time, and the Minister will no doubt be faced with this problem until he sees his way to introduce a fresh Act of Parliament providing for a series of regulations. We do not intend to impede him in so doing.
It is perfectly evident that, in the vast majority of cases, these regulations will not be prayed against. If the Minister can say that the National Council and the various bodies interested in these matters have given him their support in discussions with regard to the particular regulations he proposes to bring in, that will undoubtedly be so powerful an argument that our prayers, if Prayers there be, will carry very little weight; but, from time to time, matters may be brought forward of a somewhat doubtful nature—matters which we feel are possibly not fully covered by the regulations which the Minister brings in, or in which the regulations tend to impede and retard what we consider may be reasonable developments of a technical nature. We may desire to take the opportunity of having a full discussion of these matters and giving voice to what we consider to be objections to some of the regulations which the Minister may wish to make.
I cannot for the life of me see why, in those circumstances, Parliament should be deprived of that right. As has been pointed out, the time may very well come when hon. Members opposite may be more than anxious to exercise their right of cross-examining the Minister of the day, who may not be a member of the Labour Party, and they would be the


first to object if they had not this power. Indeed, in Committee there were indications that hon. Members opposite were concerned about this, and I hope that on further consideration the Minister will see that there is substance in our desire to have this new Clause accepted, and will grant these powers to us.

Mr. John McKay: I admit that on the face of it there seems to be a certain amount of logic in the arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite, but to those who know the facts the case does not appear quite so strong. To understand this problem necessitates examining what happens before any regulation is introduced. It is recognised, I think, that we are here dealing, not with something in which there is not an interested organised body, but with matters which are watched by large organisations. Indeed, not only is there an organisation of a million people, in the shape of the Mineworkers' Union, which watches all these things, but before any regulation is passed, this organisation and all interested parties in the industry are consulted. With important regulations there will be many meetings and lengthy consultation to consider the question with shall oppose this Motion.
Of course, despite that consultation with the Minister before the passing of a regulation, there might be an exceptional case where, after the implementation and the evidence in the mines of the working of a regulation, there might be some dispute as to whether or not it was beneficial. If that be so, the question arises: Is there any other method of dealing with the problem than by a Prayer in this House to annul the regulation? Although every effort is made to have a regulation thoroughly considered by all concerned before it is brought into operation, it is possible that some regulations do not work as expected and that there is a case for amendment. I assume that the Ministry of Fuel and Power has means of dealing with such a situation, in collaboration with the Mineworkers' Union. If I am wrong my argument is weakened, but I assume that if any regulation does not work as expected, and if harmful results follow its application, then the Mineworkers' Union would, on behalf of their members, raise the matter with the Ministry, and I am convinced that it

would not need the interference of Parliament to obtain the necessary amendment.
4.15 p.m.
I am confident that were that not so there would have been an intimation to that effect from the Mineworkers' Union. I am a miners' representative, and I have had no such intimation from the union; there has been no suggestion that it is necessary to watch this carefully, or that there should be no other method of remedying a defect than coming to Parliament and having a long Debate on a Prayer for the annulment of the regulation. As miners' representatives we are confident that there are other methods of ventilating grievances and dealing with difficulties which arise following upon the making of a regulation by the Ministry. Because we are certain that any problem which follows the making of a regulation can be dealt with more speedily and effectively, and more satisfactorily to the practical men in the pit, than by the method suggested in this new Clause, we shall oppose the Motion.

Mr. John Foster: I wish to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), and I think it rather unfortunate that, after saying that for 37 years the Tories had not prayed against any regulations made under Section 86 of the 1911 Act—a statement which he must have known would be controverted from this side of the House—the hon. Member should have left the Chamber without taking the opportunity of hearing the truth and being able to withdraw such an accusation. However, he has gone and we must do the best we can without him.

Mr. D. J. Williams: I would point out that my hon. Friend has left because he was sent for.

Mr. Foster: I do not wonder that he was sent for after making such an outrageous statement. He deserves a little bit of a caning, and I expect he is getting it now. Nevertheless, I do not think that is a reason for leaving the Chamber; the headmaster ought to wait until the boy has had an opportunity of making an apology.
Section 86 (4) of the 1911 Act says:
An order made under this section shall be laid as soon as possible before both Houses of Parliament, and should have effect as if enacted in this Act.


Subsection (5) says:
An order made under this section may be revoked, altered, or added to by an order made in like manner and subject to the same provisions as the original order.
What happens under that Act is that the Secretary for Mines, as he was at the passing of that Act, and now the Minister of Fuel and Power, makes the order, and it is not possible to pray against it. I am sure that the Minister will agree with this point of view. There is no power to pray against any order amending a previous order. There is a procedure provided for in the Schedule by which an order made by the Minister may be referred to a panel of referees, and if they think there is a special legal question involved there is appeal to a lawyer. The whole procedure in regard to reference is laid down in the Schedule.

Mr. George Porter: Surely the hon. Member will agree that the operation under subsection (5) is subsequent to action taken in this House?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Foster: I cannot agree. Subsection (4) makes it quite clear that the regulations are simply laid. If the Minister wants to alter them, he must alter them under subsection (5), when there is no discussion in the House. Members may like to refer to the procedure about reference which is contained in the Second Schedule. The Minister must give notice of the order he is going to make, and if there are objections, which must be in writing, the Minister may refer the objections to a panel of referees, and on the report being made by the panel, he either alters the draft order or lets it go through as before.

Mr. Porter: That is the point I am endeavouring to make. The Minister does not alter the regulations unless representations are made by someone that changes should be made.

Mr. Foster: "Someone" is very different from the House of Commons. The "someone" is the persons affected by the regulations who lodged their objections in writing.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Ince has now returned. I should like to ask him to withdraw his allegation that the Tories have not prayed against regulations made under the 1911

Act for 37 years; that is quite apart from the debating point that the Tories have not been in power for the 37 years since the 1911 Act. There is the substantial point that the regulations cannot be prayed against, and I expect the hon. Member during his visit outside the House has satisfied himself that that is so. If the hon. Member is now convinced by his research or from the teaching he has had outside the House, I hope he will withdraw that remark. I know that the hon. Member does not want to let a false point or false argument go out from this House. He has said that one of the crimes of the Tories has been that they have not prayed against these regulations, and I am sure he does not wish that to go out because it is quite untrue. If he does not wish to withdraw, I am afraid that I cannot teach him fairness in politics—that is a matter for himself.
I should like now to allude to the point of view taken up by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay). He says that the House of Commons need not be bothered because there is the miners' union and the Government own the mines, and that therefore everything is quite happy as between the miners' union and the Government. I do not think the hon. Member has quite appreciated the fact that although things may be all right between the miners' union and the Government—and of course the top union officials have jobs in the Government and represent the unions in Parliament—things are not all right between the members of the union in the nationalised industry and their union officials in the Government. Things are not all right, as one can see, because there are unofficial strikes and it takes months for disputes and. grievances to come up even to the men's own union officials.
It is no answer for an hon. Member to get up in this House and say, "It is all right, the union has said nothing." Of course the union have not said anything. They work hand in glove with the Government and disregard the interests of the men. That is the trouble, and we get the same trouble in civil aviation and in the transport industry. That is why some breakaway unions are popular and why there are unofficial strikes; it is because the men are dissatisfied with their own union officials. There is great disquiet among many trade unionists who


remember the glorious record of trade unionism that is being thrown away because top union officials prefer to work in harmony with the Government instead of putting the interests of their men first. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Then how do Members explain why they have unofficial strikes and why they cannot control their own members? It is because they get too far away from their own members.
If we allow the union and the Government, as the hon. Member has suggested, to work hand-in-hand in regard to these regulations, they will be open to disregard the point of view of the men, and that is why we are bringing in this new Clause. It is because we want Parliament to look after the interests of the men.

Mr. Murray: Can the hon. Member give the figures of the unofficial strikes under private enterprise as against the unofficial strikes under nationalisation?

Mr. Foster: I am much obliged to an hon. Friend who tells me that there were 1,100 unofficial strikes in the coal industry in the last year.

Mr. William Ross: Can the hon. Member tell us what procedure has been followed for the past 37 years, to which he and his party have taken no objection until today?

Mr. Foster: The answer to that question is easy. We have approved the procedure which has been followed for the past 37 years because there have been three interested parties. There have been the miners, the owners and the Government, and now there are only two parties. On the one hand, there is the Government, with the top union officials who will not look after the interests of their men, and Members know perfectly well that there is grave dissatisfaction among the rank and file of trade unionists throughout the country—

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Member suggesting that there was no dissatisfaction when the men were represented by their trade unions in the old days and who, incidentally, are still represented by their trade unions? Will he tell us what Government intervened on behalf of the men and the public in 1946?

Mr. Foster: I am afraid that the hon. Member has not appreciated the point. The fact that there has been dissatisfaction before, does not prevent dissatisfaction in the future.

Mr. D. J. Williams: Mr. D. J. Williams rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the past.

Mr. Foster: When Members rise in all parts of the House one knows something has been said that has got under their skin. If one reads "The Tribune," as I do every week, it will be seen that this point of view is put forward; that the top union officials are not always looking after the interests of their men. We want to remove one of the reasons for unofficial strikes, and one way of doing that is for Parliament to be put in as an extra party in regard to these regulations to see that the unions and the Government do not get too close together so that all the miners can see that instead of having a personal boss and a union official to protect them, they are now by themselves, and have one boss consisting of the Government and the trade union top officials together.
That is the reason why this Clause has been brought forward, and that is the reason why we say that the procedure under the 1911 Act should be altered—because the position has altered. Instead of having three parties in the industry we now have only two, and the miner is beginning to find his own officials on the side of the bosses, and his own officials tell him, "This is a Socialist Government, and you must not embarrass them even though your grievances are quite justified, and even though you would be entitled to press them under private enterprise. Under a Socialist Government you are not so entitled."

4.30 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I am anxious to confine my remarks as far as possible to the Bill and to the new Clause, but I cannot let the comments of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) pass without making some reply to what seemed to me to be a disgraceful attack on the leaders of the trade union movement. He appeared to be criticising them for the moderating influence which they exercise upon their members, so as to help the country through its present economic


difficulties. I am astonished that a prominent member of the Conservative Party should now be descending to a syndicalist policy. I should hope that if any Member on the Front Bench opposite is to speak he will repudiate the hon. Member for Northwich, because he made a most scandalous suggestion.
The new Clause which we are discussing does, of course, go much further than this Bill. In effect it is an Amendment of the 1911 Act to provide that regulations made under that Act shall be subject to annulment by Parliament. It is perfectly true that under this particular Bill the power of the Minister to make regulations is extended, but important as it is that we should have that power, nevertheless, the power to make regulations to amend Part I cannot be regarded as comparable in importance to the power which already exists under the 1911 Act to deal with safety matters. Therefore, it is primarily as an amendment to the 1911 Act that we must regard the new Clause.
Hon. Members opposite really must not be surprised if some of my hon. Friends upbraid them for their passive acquiescence all these years in what they have now described as a most monstrous procedure. It is perfectly true that they could not pray against those regulations but they had many opportunities in all those years to raise this matter in the House of Commons. It might have been mentioned in any number of Debates about the coal industry.

Mr. McCorquodale: It might have been out of Order.

Mr. Gaitskell: It would not have been out of Order. Hon. Members could have referred to regulations made under the 1911 Act, and could have said, "Of course they were not in the right form but if only Parliament had had the opportunity of looking at them they might have been in the right form." Nothing was said.
We have on the Front Bench opposite a right hon. and gallant Gentleman who was Minister of Fuel and Power in the Coalition Government. I do not know whether, when he held that position, he felt at any time that it would really have been a valuable stimulus to him had these regulations been subject to Parliamentary annulment. I do not know whether the

right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), when he was Secretary for Mines and no doubt made many regulations, felt that it would have been an advantage to him that the regulations should be subject to annulment.

Captain Crookshank: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to reply I will tell him, although I had not intended to take part in this Debate. When I first became Secretary for Mines one of my chief intentions was to carry out a revision of the whole Act dealing with safety regulations. I recommended and had set up a Royal Commission, which reported, in order not only to deal with the whole question of safety but, which would follow from that, the procedure to be followed in this House in dealing with the subject. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gaitskell: Unfortunately, that does not happen to be the answer to the question which I put; it has nothing whatever to do with it. I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether, when he was Secretary for Mines, he felt that it would be a good thing or not to have these regulations subject to Parliamentary annulment.

Captain Crookshank: I have just said that I was instrumental in setting up a Royal Commission to advise on that very point.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is interesting to observe that the Royal Commission did not in fact recommend that these regulations should be subject to annulment by Parliament.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) argues his case on the basis that the safety and health of miners is a major matter, and is something which should concern the House of Commons. No one would deny either of those propositions, but there is the further point whether we should decide the question of whether or not a regulation is to be subject to annulment simply on this basis of importance. I suggest to the hon. Member and to the House that that is not really the criterion which should be applied. I take it we all agree that there are some occasions when regulations should not be subject to Parliamentary annulment. We are not taking the view—I do not think that any Mem-


ber opposite has taken the view—that in all circumstances every regulation made, must come before the House and be capable of challenge.
A line has obviously to be drawn here, certain criteria have to be applied. I do not think that it depends solely on the importance of the matter. It seems to me to depend first on whether the matters to be dealt with in the regulations are highly specialised, are of general public interest and are matters affecting persons who are not fully consulted before the regulations are made. If that were not the case, one could well understand that the House of Commons would be the place to defend the rights of the individuals concerned. Here, as the hon. Member for Northwich indicated, we have a very elaborate procedure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) explained, every one is consulted before these regulations are made. Owners and workers alike have the right of general objection to regulations which are made. That means that they can take the Minister to arbitration if they are not satisfied.

Mr. McCorquodale: The managers cannot.

Mr. Gaitskell: That is perfectly true. But they are consulted and they have the right of private objection to the Minister. I suggest that it was these circumstances which determined Parliament in 1911 to decide that this was a type of regulation which need not come for debate before the House. I suggest also that the satisfactory way in which the whole procedure has been carried out all these years is at least some evidence that it has worked well, and that there is no particular case for making any change at the moment.
The only argument that hon. Members opposite have put forward to support the view that there should now be a change is the difference made by nationalisation and something to do with the position as between the individual trade unionists, on the one hand, and their leaders, on the other. I suggest that no difference whatever is made in this matter by nationalisation. The Minister's position remains exactly as before. In the matter of safety we remain an independent party, and I can assure the House that I should be very sorry if that position were ever to

change. The mines inspectorate are just as impartial in their administering of the regulations and the advice they tender as they were when the industry was under private enterprise. Therefore, that argument has no substance whatever. As to the other argument, I have already indicated that to me it seems one which it was quite wrong to put forward and which is not to be taken seriously at all. The trade unions themselves can very well take care of that, though it does not do the hon. Member for Northwich much good to be coming forward and supporting unofficial strikes.
There are only two further points wish to make. Reference has been made to the argument put forward in Committee that delay might take place if, in fact, the new Clause were adopted. I still think there is a risk of that, but I do not put it very high. I was challenged because I said that the National Coal Board and other employers might not be willing, if there was a danger of regulations being vetoed by the House, to carry out extensive expenditure which might be necessary at once. I did not mean by that that if particular measures were necessary for the safety of the men they would hesitate, but it might be a question of changing a particular design —the design of a lamp, for instance. Certain designs might have been approved before hand, and then it might be decided to have a new type, with the result that the National Coal Board might be in a difficult position if they went ahead with the new design before Parliament settled the issue.
They are not the only persons concerned, because the manufacturers of the equipment are concerned as well, and they might hesitate. I do not emphasise this argument as having enormous importance. Clearly it has not; but it is a possibility and if there is a possibility of delaying essential safety measures we should look carefully before we adopt this new Clause.
We do not feel strongly about this particular matter. I said upstairs, and I repeat it here, that when the time comes for new legislation to cover this whole field, the matter can be looked at again. I do not say that we shall not go further than the Royal Commission, and possibly if at that time, it seems fit to the


Government and the House to make a change, it will be done. I am quite clear, however, that this is not the moment to make any such change. I am quite clear, too, that the procedure hitherto followed is perfectly satisfactory to all concerned, and on those grounds we must certainly reject this new Clause.

Mr. McCorquodale: My hon. Friends on this side of the House will not regard the Minister's answer as very satisfactory. He made some offensive remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), but this is a matter which trade union leaders in many different trades are giving very anxious care to, as the Minister of Labour, myself and others who have been associated with various industries know very well.

Mr. Gaitskell: Greatly helped by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster).

Mr. McCorquodale: Maybe helped and maybe hindered, but it is no good the Minister thinking that there is no concern here about unofficial strikes, and his offensive remarks in regard to my hon. Friend were unworthy of him and of the Government. I regret that he should have engendered heat over this matter. [Interruption.] The heat was engendered by the Minister. We regard this problem as a House of Commons problem and not as a party matter at all. I believe the Minister is wrong. The Minister said in Committee that he would give more consideration to this problem, but after a great deal of balancing of the pros and cons he thinks that the present time is not appropriate to bring it in. He has not given us any satisfactory reasons for coming to that conclusion.
4.45 p.m.
Part I of this Bill is a justification of the view that first thoughts are not always the best, because the whole of Part I amends the 1945 Act. Therefore, nobody will say that because a Bill or regulations have been produced, they cannot be amended, and that they should not be considered in that light. None of us on this side of the House would do anything to hold up for one moment necessary safety precautions in the mines, but I do not believe that by having this suggested power here, there is any chance of any safety device being held up at all.

There is a point which it is necessary to put. We had two Clauses down with regard to the position of managers, but those Clauses have not been called. Under Section 2 (1) of the 1911 Act, a colliery manager is responsible for the control, management and direction of the mines, but he has no statutory right to make representations to the Minister in regard to new regulations. The owners and workers have such a statutory right, and it seems strange that while the manager as a responsible official has to carry out the safety regulations, the owners, who are now the National Coal Board, and the workmen have this statutory right, which the managers have not.
There might be a clash of opinion on some safety regulations. If there is a clash of opinion and the Minister has to take sides between the two different kinds of advice given to him by experts, Parliament should be the final court of appeal and should be able to fortify the Minister in the action he has taken in accepting advice from one party. He could then say that he had taken the matter to Parliament and that Parliament had not objected to it. The Minister also argues that because this system worked well in the past we should leave well alone and carry on with the thing as it is. That is an attractive argument to present to the House in these days, but it will not hold water here, because conditions are quite different from what they were in the past, since this industry, alas, has been nationalised. We in this House are trustees for the owners of the mining industry. Prior to 1945 the owners were individual sets of people; now they are the whole people and we in Parliament are their trustees.
I should have thought in those circumstances that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is a good one—that since nationalisation has come about, and as this onus is on all of us as representing not only those actively engaged in the mines but all the shareholders in the business, we should have the final word of debating and if necessary annulling any regulations which the Minister may make. I was very glad to hear the Minister suggest that possibly he might change his mind in a new Bill on the subject. We are anxiously awaiting that new Bill. So far as we on this side


of the House are concerned we shall certainly facilitate its introduction.
I cannot recollect any fairly modern precedent whatever of Bills authorising regulations of great importance, like the regulations for safety in the mines, which would be of great importance, being made without being subject to some control by Parliament. The position has gradually changed over the last 25 years, and Parliament is more and more desirous of keeping a hand upon regulations issued by Ministers. This is not a party question at all, for whatever Government are in office naturally they are inclined to object to Parliament having that hand. I am sure that it is a salutary thing for Parliament to have some say in these major affairs. It is good for the Minister and for hon. Members as trustees for the nation, and better regulations may be brought in as a result of it. I hope that the Minister will be able to change his mind and to accept our proposed new Clause. Otherwise I must ask my hon. Friends to support it in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Charles Williams: I look upon the proposed new Clause from a different point of view, not having been mixed up with these affairs when the Bill was in Committee. It is not right on an occasion of this kind that an important Measure should be entirely controlled by experts. The work of those who are experts on coal has been essential, but there is another point of view, that of the ordinary Members of Parliament who represent the millions of people who now own the coalmines. That is a position which has not existed in the past. I would not look upon a new Clause of this kind in a favourable light if it increased the number of regulations which are to be made and laid before Parliament.. We have far too many regulations.

Mr. Shurmer: And far more work.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman opposite reads every regulation rigorously, I have no doubt, and he will be able to interrupt us on every one of them if he wishes to. The fact remains that ordinary Members of Parliament have complained that there ought not to be regulations unless they are absolutely

justified. That might be a reason for voting against the new Clause. A very strong reason would exist if the coal experts, who are only a fraction of the House on either side, could prove to us ordinary Members that passing this Clause might mean delay in the introduction of safety measures. Obviously in that case it would be ridiculous to have every one of the regulations laid on the Table of the House and debated. I would not suggest that for one moment.
So far as the Tory Party are concerned —I speak only for the Tory Party—we believe that in matters concerning human life it is the duty of the coalowners and of the Government to take every possible precaution. We support that principle as a party. We have always done so, and we intend to continue to do so. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) referred to the position under the 1911 Act and said that regulations made under it had not been raised in the House. It has never been possible at any time to do it. If it had been possible I am sure that if some Tory Minister of Mines had brought in during that period an order which was not quite perfect, the miner Members of those days would have called attention to it. Miners' representatives were not the docile creatures, under the control of a Government Whip, that they are today. It would have been possible also for the Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929–30 to have changed such orders. There was never any suggestion of that being done. The position today has changed completely. One thing which has changed is that we then had miner Members with fire in their hearts and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the subject of the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was saying that one of the reasons why I support it is that we have a very different position today from what we had in the past. We have eliminated one of the three parties who were then in existence in the coal industry, the coal-owner, as a private individual. He has been bought out and taken out. We are left with the miners, whose representatives in this House I was describing as a body of men not so virile—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not reflect upon the ability or capacity of other hon. Members. He knows that perfectly well.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Williams: If you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, rule that I am out of Order in saying that hon. Members are not as virile as their predecessors used to be, I must, of course, accept it. It seems to me, if I must not accuse hon. Members opposite of having lost force and virility, that I may say that they are more inclined to be mild than they used to be. I have no wish to go into an argument about precise words. Our case is quite strong enough without that. It is that the Tory Party have always fought for safety regulations for the miners. On the other hand, there is a terrifically strong organisation in the Government and in

the Coal Board, and we think that we are justified under present conditions in asking the House to enable regulations, especially those connected with life and health, to be laid before the House. We believe that the final responsibility rests not with the Government or with the Coal Board, but with the Members of the House of Commons. Unless we have power to deal with regulations of this kind I see no hope of bringing satisfaction to the miners themselves, and the knowledge that they can appeal finally to the House of Commons as the supreme arbiter on matters that concern their health.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes. 98: Noes. 180.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[5.2 p.m


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Raikes, H. V.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hen. R. S. (Southport)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bossom, A. C.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bower, N.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Braithwaite, Lt -Comdr. J. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Savory, Prof. D L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smithers, Sir W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Linsteacl, H. N.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carson, E.
Lipson, D. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Low, A R W.
Studholme, H G.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n. S.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Teeling, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
MacLeod, J
Torten, R. H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wadsworth, G.


Draws, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. Richmond)
Marsden, Capt A.
Watt, Sir G S. Harvie


Eccles, D. M.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Erroll, F. J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Molson., A. H. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)
Nicholson, G.



Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gammans, L. D.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Major Conant and Colonel Wheatley.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)





NOES


Alien, A. C (Bosworth)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Daggar, G


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Daines, P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Attewell, H. C.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Ayies, W. H.
Burden, T. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Deer, G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Chalet, D.
Delargy, H. J.


Barstow, P. G.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dodds, N. N.


Barton, C.
Cluse, W. S.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Battley, J. R.
Cocks, F S.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Collins. V. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Benson, G.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Edelman, M.


Berry, H.
Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Cove, W. G.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Crawley, A.
Evans, John (Ogmore)




Farthing, W. J
McAdam, W.
Shawcross, Rt. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Follick, M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Shurmer, P.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Mack, J. D.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Skeffington, A. M.


Gibson, C. W.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Skinnard, F. W.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McLeavy, F.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Goodrich, H. E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Solley, L. J.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Grierson, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stamford, W.


Gunter, R. J.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Stross, Dr. B.


Hale, Leslie
Medland, H. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Middleton, Mrs. L
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mikardo, Ian
Thurtle, Ernest


Hardman, D. R.
Monslow, W.
Timmons, J


Harrison, J.
Moyle, A.
Tolley, L.


Haworth, J.
Murray, J. D.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Naylor, T. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Hewitson, Capt. M
Pargiter, G. A.
Viant, S. P.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J
Walkden, E.


Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wallace, G D (Chislehurst)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Warbey, W. N.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pearl, T. F.
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, H D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Popplewell, E.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Hyrul, H. (Hackney, C.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T.
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pryde, D. J
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Wigg, George


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Randall, H. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ranger, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Keenan, W.
Reeves, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Kenyon, C.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Kinley, J,
Robens, A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Kirby, B. V.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Willis, E.


Lang, G.
Robertson, J. J (Berwick)
Wise, Major F. J.


Lavers, S.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Yates, V. F.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Zilliacus, K.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Royle, C.



Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Scollan, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leslie, J. R.
Segal, Dr. S.
Mr. Pearson and


Levy, B. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sharp, Granville

Clause 2.—(EXTENSION OF AREA WITHIN WHICH THE BOARD'S ACTIVITIES MAY BE CARRIED ON.)

Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Provided that paragraph (c) of subsection (I) of Section one of the Principal Act shall be read and have effect as if after the word 'including' there were inserted the words 'as respects supplies to any British company, firm or person.'
This is a short Amendment but it is by no means a simple one. It will be necessary to give a little background if hon. Members who did not take part in the Committee stage are to understand it. Section 1 of the principal Act of 1946 details the functions of the Coal Board. Subsection (1, a) states that one function is:
Working and getting the coal in Great Britain, to the exclusion (save as in this Act provided) of any other person.
Subsection (1, c) states that another function is:

Making supplies of coal available, of such qualities and sizes, in such quantities and at such prices, as may seem to the best calculated to further the public interest in all respects.
That statement of functions is modified by Section 63 (3), which says:
References in this Act to activities of any kind (whether or not described by that word) shall be construed as limited to activities of that kind carried on in Great Britain, but not so as to exclude, in the case of selling or supplying, selling or supplying for export or selling or supplying imported goods in Great Britain.
There has been a certain amount of doubt as to the meaning of these words, and I understand that Clause 2 of the present Bill has been put in to try to clear up that confusion. What is certain is that up to date what is generally known as the export of coal from this country, and the many ancillary trades connected with it, have not been generally carried out by the Coal Board. The Board has sold coal free-on-board ships or free-alongside in ships, but has not merchanted it on the other side of the sea. I believe


that in one case a representative of the Coal Board went abroad but it was considered that that was not within the rights of the Coal Board and there was some talk of a possible injunction. By and large, however, the Coal Board to date has not engaged in the export trade or in the ancillary trades, such as the bunker trade, or the discharge of coal in foreign ports, which is often performed by companies under British ownership, or in the grading and distribution of coal abroad, or in the making of briquettes, which is a large industry particularly in North Africa.
I think that export was omitted from the Act of 1946. When that Measure was going through this House I remember well commenting on the fact that the word "export" was never used. I remember remarking on that to the present Secretary of State for War, and I believe it was deliberately left out. I think that was wise and that it is a mistake to try to insert it now. I do not think one can exaggerate the importance of the export trade which is something that should not be undertaken lightly, particularly when an organisation like the Coal Board has so much still to complete in the management and administration of its affairs at home. It requires a large staff, it requires travellers and men making personal contacts in foreign countries. It requires resident agents. It often means acquiring interests in foreign companies in countries where companies are not allowed whose capital is mainly owned in Great Britain. And it means undertaking considerable risks, not only of the chartering of ships but also exchange risks, because often one does not get paid for months. This is particularly true of some of the Northern trades where coal has to be delivered when the ports are ice free, it is not consumed until the winter, and payment is not made until then. There are credit risks, too, so I feel it would be a great pity to engage in this trade. In addition, considerable capital would be wanted, and I do not think the Coal Board has much money to spare at the moment.
If I may digress, I will say what I meant to do in the first place, that I have some interest in this matter. I am a director of a company, one of whose subsidiaries is engaged in the export trade, although I am not myself engaged in it.
Last, but not least, I cannot see why the National Coal Board should want to

enter a trade of this kind on a falling market. Valuable as the export trade is, there is no doubt that it is today a falling market, and I do not think there is any country in Europe which is really embarrassed for want of coal to the extent we are, at any rate inside this country. It is a great pity that this matter should not have been allowed to rest as it was.
5.15 p.m.
To return to the actual wording of the Amendment, I would like to call attention to another point that arises in Section 1 of the principal Act. After mentioning as a function the making available of supplies of coal, the paragraph ends:
including the avoidance of any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage.
If I remember aright, those words were put in after considerable pressure had been exercised by hon. and right hon. Members of this Party, because that is the only basis on which trade within this country can be allowed by a great monopoly like the Coal Board. If, however, export is to be allowed through the National Coal Board, I am not sure there is any need for those words to remain. It should definitely be possible for the National Coal Board to discriminate between buyers abroad, between different countries, and even between buyers in the same port where we may wish to help public utility companies but may not be so inclined to help a manufacturing business making goods that compete with those manufactured in this country.
As I say, I am not recommending that the Government should have this weapon, let alone use it, but if the Government insist on taking it, there should be some weapon which could be used if necessary. There are dangers in any Government entering the export trade but, if they do, this point should be looked at. We raised it during earlier Debates on the Committee stage, not as an Amendment but on the question "That the Clause stand part." Possibly there was an Amendment down which was not called. I have confirmed my recollection that on that occasion the Minister referred to the matter but gave us no reply; possibly a number of other matters were also raised which appeared to him to be of greater importance. I recollect that he seemed slightly embarrassed about it. I do not know why he


should have been, but anyhow we did not get an answer and I hope that today, after certain legal points are dealt with by my learned Friends, the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a full answer whether he considers that this Amendment should be accepted in the interests of the National Coal Board if it really means to take what I feel is the unfortunate step of entering the foreign coal trade.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Amendment, which was moved so ably by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), goes right to the root of the Clause. I do not want to cover the whole of the ground but it is necessary to consider the ramifications of the Clause if we are to see the Amendment in its proper perspective. We are concerned here with Section 1 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. That Section has three parts which define duties, functions and powers. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that both "functions" and "powers" are limited by "the duties" defined in the first paragraph of that Section. Therefore, we are really concerned only with duties. It is important to note, however, that a duty is something which the National Coal Board are bound to do, whether they like it or not. Therefore, we must look at this matter in its mandatory context.
Section 1 (1) gives the Coal Board three duties: first, to work coal in Great Britain; second, to secure the efficient development of the coalmining industry —in contrast with the previous paragraph, it is noticeable that this is in no way limited to the coalmining industry in Great Britain; third, to make supplies of coal available in the terms of the paragraph which was read out by my hon. and gallant Friend. So long as Section 63 (3) remained fully applicable, the activities of the National Coal Board were all limited to activities carried on in Great Britain, but what Clause 2 of the present Bill proposes to do is to remove that effect from Section 1 of the Act.
As far as the working of coal is concerned, I think it is clear that this is expressly termed "working in Great Britain." I believe that both on the strict construction of paragraph (a), to which I have referred, and by the principle that

by stating one thing other things are excluded by implication, the Coal Board would be precluded henceforward by law from working coal overseas. I understand that the view of the Government about this is different, but this is a matter, if the Government are unwilling to take it further now, which it may in due course be necessary to determine in the courts.
In the light of the Amendment which the Clause effects, paragraph (b) of Section 1 (1) of the principal Act will be extraordinarily vague. I ask the Government, therefore, to give us some idea of what they mean by the "coal mining industry" when it is in no sense limited to the industry in Great Britain. Although we had some discussion about this in Committee, I should like again to put this specific point to the Government: are they satisfied that it will not be the bounden duty of the National Coal Board to have regard to the coalmining industry in, for example, Russia, France, Germany or countries anywhere else in the world in framing their policy, should the Clause as it stands become law? There is a danger that such a position may arise, and I think the House should be quite certain, before the Bill leaves here, that there is no chance that the National Coal Board should be bound in any way to have regard in the first place to interests other than those of the British coalmining industry.
As regards the third paragraph of Section 1 (1) of the principal Act, so long as the activities of the Coal Board were limited to activities in Great Britain, the final words of that paragraph that the Coal Board are to avoid
any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage"—
were fairly clear. We on this side understood those words to mean no undue preference as between British subjects. We imagined that purchasers and others having dealings with the Coal Board would be either British companies or persons or, at any rate, people owing allegiance to the British Crown. Quite clearly, the effect of the Clause now before us will alter that completely. It takes away altogether the limitation of the activities of the Board to Great Britain, and it is perfectly plain that it is the intention of the Government that the Coal Board should go into business overseas.

Mr. Scollan: Hear, hear.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If they do that, they will have to make contracts, not only with foreign individuals, but in a number of cases with the agencies of foreign governments.

Mr. Scollan: Why not?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am inclined to think that the Government share the view that wholly different considerations arise in dealings between foreign Governments than in dealings between British subjects.
This matter was not raised expressly by means of an Amendment in Committee, but when discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part," the Minister was asked to explain the Government's attitude to this matter. It is relevant to my argument that I should refer to his reply. He said:
The simple answer to that is that the public interest has to be interpreted as the interest of this realm here, and when it comes to the interests of this realm, then, certainly the Coal Board can do anything it likes as regards prices for foreign buyers. In any case I would point out that that is not really raised specifically by the Clause or by the Bill, because in any case the Coal Board has, as the hon. Baronet will know from his close study of Section 63 (3), power to export coal; but it could do that only in this country.
I interrupt this quotation to say I am not quite certain what the right hon. Gentleman meant. Obviously, if we are to export coal, we must export it from this country. What I think he meant was that the Coal Board had only power to make a sale within this country, and that he was under the impression, therefore, that it was only open to the Coal Board to make a contract which would be a contract enforceable in the courts of this country. I do not think he meant to say that it would not be possible for the Coal Board to make a sale to, say, the Government of Russia, if a Russian agency negotiated the agreement in this country. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
It could as easily have happened that there was discrimination between foreign buyers when a sale took place here as when it took place abroad. The position is not changed in that respect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th January, 1949, Col. 234.]
5.30 p.m.
I rather think the right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that we were complaining of the possibility of

discrimination between foreign buyers, but that is the reverse of the position. We have always maintained that whereas between British buyers there should be no discrimination when selling overseas, it is of the utmost necessity that there should be power to discriminate. I am not saying that deliberate discrimination is proper in every case, but that it is quite wrong to tie our own hands so that we cannot discriminate when we sell coal overseas. The purpose of this Amendment is to raise that point specifically, in order that there should quite clearly be retained the power to discriminate.
I do not wish to go into the question of discrimination in detail now, and you would probably rule me out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I pursued it at great length. Power to discriminate between foreign buyers in general and foreign Governments in particular is a very dangerous power to entrust even to a Government and more particularly to a board which is only a quasi-government board. If we are to have nationalisation, we must entrust that power to someone. I cannot see if we accept the Amendment whether we are entrusting that power to the Coal Board or to the Minister and it is a power of which I have some apprehension, but I am entirely satisfied that it is essential that we should retain that power. For that reason, we seek to insert the Amendment.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I suppose that 11 lines of a small Bill have never contained quite so much power for a Ministry, even in the life of this present Parliament. I think it rather discourteous that the Minister has not thought fit to be present to listen to the discussion. Of all the varied subjects dealt with in this Bill, this is far the widest and I think he might have spared the time to be present to listen to the arguments himself. That is no discourtesy to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. G. Porter: Did the hon. and gallant Member give notice to the Minister that he was going to speak?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not think I am of sufficient importance to warrant the appearance of the Minister but I thought that the Clause was sufficiently important. Two main issues are clear. The first is that the Coal Board are trying to get rid of a restriction with which they have been faced—

Mr. Scollan: Restriction of what?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Restriction on selling coal abroad. The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) has gathered that much, I hope, from the arguments put forward, if nothing else.

Mr. Scollan: I have been very patiently waiting for someone to tell us, because the Amendment does not mention that. The Amendment says:
as respects supplies to any British company,
and does not say a word about sales abroad. The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) spoke about sales abroad, but did not know if the Amendment dealt with that matter or not.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Obviously the hon. Member for West Renfrew has not read the Clause, nor the principal Act, nor could he have been here when Mr. Speaker ruled that on this Amendment a wide discussion should take place on Clause 2. If he had heard any of those three things he would not have made that interruption.
There are two main issues, the first that the Coal Board are trying to get rid of a restriction and the second, and more important, that both sides of the House have to consider how best coal can be sold abroad. I think that is the only issue to which we should devote ourselves. I was a Member of the Committee upstairs and heard four reasons advocated by the Government, or their supporters, for the Government point of view. The first was that they had to deal with commitments under O.E.E.C., the second that they had to meet demands under bilateral pacts, the third that there was a lacuna in what private enterprise had obtained in providing coaling stations abroad and they wanted to fill it and, fourthly, that without these powers they could not fully develop any new coalmining industry abroad. I believe the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary made a particular case of Nigeria.
Before dealing with the first three reasons, I shall deal with the fourth, which is that unless this Clause goes through the Government will have no power to help in the development of the coalmining industry abroad. That is an

argument which cannot be sustained for a moment. They, or the Coal Board, have power to supply technical help, key personnel, or machinery. What they cannot do is to take over a coalmine in Nigeria. Why should they be entitled to do so? They have not advocated a reason for doing it, but say that they might want to help. We are prepared to help them, but they have all the necessary powers already and need nothing more. The argument about developing a coalmine or the coalmining industry in any Colony or Dominion can be dismissed, because they have every power requisite.
I wish to say a word on the power of discrimination. When replying to the Debate, I thought the Minister was very "cagey" about what he would commit himself to. He said that we must discuss everything in relation to this Clause as being the "interest of this Realm." That is the one phrase which cannot be applied to this Clause, because we are dealing with exports of coal. We are dealing, not between British subjects and British consumers, but between a British company—whether it be private or nationalised—and some foreign concern and to say that the interests of the Realm are there to apply within the meaning of Section 1 of the principal Act of 1946 is completely impossible. One of the main things the Coal Board want to do is to be able to export directly under the bilateral pacts concluded by His Majesty's Government. If the Clause is left as it is, they would not be able to discriminate in the prices they charged for coal between one country and another under bilateral pacts.
In making a new agreement with the Argentine they might find it necessary to supply coal and they might find it advantageous in the overall national interest to supply it at a cheap rate, but they could not do that without being shot at under every other pact and would be told that the terms made for the Argentine should be granted to other countries concerned. In private enterprise it has always been possible for firms to take into account economic consideration, the time for payment and the national interest. All those things are completely debarred to the National Coal Board if this Clause goes through as at present drafted.
On the question of O.E.E.C. commitments; I am sure that Members on this


side of the House would be only too willing, if there were any specific trading agreements like that to help the Government, to see that they went through smoothly. We have no desire to see the Coal Board or the Government hampered in the supply of coal under any agreement which will aid European recovery, and if there was a limited stipulation to that effect I am sure we would be the first to accept it. But the Government if they did that, would have to show that private enterprise, particularly private bunkering firms, had in any way hindered the movement of coal. Far from producing any evidence of that, they would have to show that private enterprise and bunkering firms had completed all the requirements that have been made under O.E.E.C. in a way which was to the mutual advantage of this country and to whichever other country in Europe might have been receiving the coal.
On the question of bilateral pacts, it is easy for the Government to say "We want to take over shipments of coal under this agreement. Why should we not have the small additional profit, and it is small, on these consignments?" But do the Government realise that if they take away this job from the coal export trade there is nothing left with which flourishing British export coal trade, in small amounts and difficult contracts, can be met. If they want to block the main line, so to speak, they will find it impossible to stop those many other deals on which the whole prosperity of the coal trade abroad depends.
The Government talk about coaling stations, and their desire to compete in this trade. I listened to their arguments in Committee, but they seemed to have no idea of what a bunkering station abroad consists, what are its difficulties and problems and what it can achieve. They do not seem to understand that if they went into this trade they would be competing against an established British interest. They may say, "The British interest is not doing well," but, surely, at this time, when we want to earn foreign exchange, we should not duplicate our effort. Unless there is an overwhelming case for the Government, in which they can show that private enterprise or the existing set-up has failed, they should

not try to enter into competition merely because of dogma or a desire to extend their influence. Nothing could be more against the national interest as a whole. The Government have produced no example of where, how or why the existing British bunkering set-up has failed. The British Bunkering Association, with all its defects, provided coal and facilities for British shipping during the war. and have a perfect right to consider themselves as being in the front rank of those industries which have given good service.
5.45 p.m.
We have not yet heard from the Government what they think would be the effect in many countries should they set up an agency in a foreign country. We know only too well what national susceptibilities are at the moment. We have not heard from the Government what they think the reaction would be if they tried to set up a bunkering station in Egypt, for instance, and tried to compete in the Suez Canal area. We have not heard how they would overcome the problems which would face them if they did that. Nor have we heard whether they think they should set up a bunkering station and rely purely on bunkering. The private firm has to go in for ancillary trades—lighterage, ships' chandlers and transhipment of bulk cargoes. Is it the Government's intention to go in for that? If it is where is the staff to come from? Apart from the vague references to the interests of the realm, the desire to see the overall picture of the Coal Board completed, and compliance with all the phrases that flow from the London School of Economics, the Government could not prove that what they have suggested is logical and profitable from the point of view of the country.
I will conclude with this: In the last few months one thing has become abundantly clear. It is that if we are to solve the problems of the mining industry at home the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have enough to do without trying to go into these new fields and extend their risk without having consolidate any of their responsibility. This, in the words of many wiser people than myself, is nothing but mid-summer madness.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): We have all been impressed by the impassioned defence of monopoly trading by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). I rather feel that the Debate has divided itself, somewhat naturally, into two parts. First, the extension of the Coal Board's activities and, second, the question of preference as applicable to foreign buyers.
The hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) felt that the Government should not undertake bunkering for these reasons: he thought that a new organisation would be required and new capital, and that it would mean taking risks. He wanted to prevent the Coal Board from taking risks as, sometimes, people did not pay for their coal. He did not mind private exporters not being paid, but he did not want the Board to be put into that position. What do the party opposite advocate in this matter? They tell us from time to time how important it is that there should be competition and initiative, and so on. Today, when we talk of putting the Coal Board, not in any better position than anyone else in the industry, but in the same position—indeed, listening to Members opposite, it seems in a very much worse position—they say there is something wrong with that. They say that it should not be done and that we should leave this unremunerative trade to the private interests that have done it so long.
The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch made some very great mistakes. It is no use pointing to my right hon. Friend and myself and saying that we have a lot of work to do and that we have no time to set up bunkers. We do not propose to do any such thing. I thought that the hon. and gallant Member understood the Coal Act and the operations of the National Coal Board. We do not dig coal, nor do we export it. It is not our function or the function of politicians to interfere with the duties of the National Coal Board. Those duties are placed upon the National Coal Board. If they decide to enter into the bunkering trade it will be for very good business reasons. If there are any difficulties to be overcome in negotiations with foreign countries either in the Middle East or elsewhere—if they

decided to have a bunker station there —it will be for them to deal with it. It will not affect my right hon. Friend and myself one little bit. We shall not negotiate anything.
I do not want to reiterate all that was said on the Committee stage. All we are doing is saying to the Coal Board, "You may, if you so desire, now do your own work of exporting coal, establishing bunker stations abroad and so on." It must be remembered that the National Coal Board have within their ranks people very highly qualified in this matter, and they are very well advised. They would not be likely to enter into this type of trade if it was a question of taking away all of what has been termed the "bread and butter lines" from the exporter and leaving that exporter with absolutely unremunerative lines. Quite obviously in dealing with these matters the Board will approach it in a businesslike way.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: They have not done so yet.

Mr. Robens: The National Coal Board has made a better job of coal-mining in two years than resulted from a century of private enterprise.

Mr. Hudson: The public do not think so.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As I understand it now, without reference to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the National Coal Board would be entitled to enter into foreign agreements and bunkering.

Mr. Robens: What I have said is that this Clause gives the National Coal Board the power to do work abroad that they did not have formerly and they would get on with that job in the normal business-like way. If at some time or other they wanted the advice of my right hon. Friend he would be prepared to give it. Indeed, at any time the Board are entitled, if they so desire, to have the views of my right hon. Friend.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Has the Parliamentary Secretary forgotten Section 3 of the principal Act under which the Minister is bound to give directions on all major matters of policy? Is he saying that this is a matter on which the Minister has made up his mind that he is not going to give any such direction?

Mr. Robens: I am grateful to the hon. Baronet for mentioning the matter, but it does not say anything of the kind. It says that the Minister may give directions; it does not say that he shall.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is he going to?

Mr. Robens: Why should I, at this stage, say what the Minister is or is not going to do? He will decide when the circumstances arise.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Parliamentary Secretary has just said specifically that the Minister was not going to give directions. All I want to know is whether that is the fact.

Mr. Robens: I did not say that at all, if the hon. Baronet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."]—it is no use hon. Members opposite nodding their heads. I know precisely what I said, and the OFFICIAL REPORT will make it clear tomorrow. What I said was that the Minister is not going to interfere in their business arrangements, and I repeat that. The question of direction does not enter into it. Very little else was raised by hon. Members opposite. There was never any arguments as to why the National Coal Board should not have the right or the power to do this work if they so desire.
The other point that was raised was with regard to undue preference. That matter was dealt with quite extensively in Committee by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch was not correct when he said the matter had not been referred to by my right hon. Friend. In point of fact it was dealt with at column 234 of the Committee stage.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The paragraph that was read?

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir, the paragraph that was read. The hon. and gallant Member has not even noticed that it mentioned that matter.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I wish to do justice to the Minister on this. Will he look at the speech to which I referred, which started in column 236, two columns after the Minister had spoken?

Mr. Robens: I do not think that it matters very much.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It matters for accuracy.

Mr. Robens: The hon. and gallant Member has made his point, for what it is worth.
The hon. Member for South Hendon makes the specific point that when Section 63—or that part of it dealing with this matter—no longer applied to the duties of the Board in point of fact this provision about unreasonable preference would be an advantage to foreign buyers. Our advice, of course, is quite different from that. If the hon. Member would read 1 (1, c) of the principal Act again he would see that the Coal Board have to do certain things
As may seem to them best calculated to further the public interest in all respects…
What is the "public interest?" It is certainly not the public interest of foreign countries. Surely the public interest is the British public interest. Surely it is the public interest of the realm. If it is, in fact, in the interest of the British people that there shall be preferences in foreign sales then the Board are entitled to exercise those preferences if they so desire.
As I understand it hon. Members opposite are not complaining about them exercising any preference. What they are fearful of is that if we pass this Clause as it is the Board would not have the power to exercise preference. Our view is that they would have the power to exercise preference, because all that they do must be in the public interest—the British public interest, the interest of the realm. The hon. Member for South Hendon advanced the same argument in relation to paragraphs (a) and (b). But paragraph (b)—
Securing the efficient development of the coal-mining industry"—
cannot possibly apply to securing the efficient development of the coalmining industry in any other country. It must surely apply to the coalmining industry of Great Britain, because that is what the Bill is about, and we are satisfied on that point.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The whole point of the Parliamentary Secretary here is that he desires that the activities of the Coal Board should be taken outside Great Britain. Why should this particular paragraph be limited to Great Britain?

Mr. Robens: I am saying that what we are securing is the efficient development of the coalmining industry in this country and not the efficient development of the coalmining industry abroad. If, on the other hand, the Nigerian Government said, "Come and work some coalmines for us"—[Interruption]—well, I referred to Nigeria, because the hon. and gallant Member made reference to that country and I thought that we might keep to the same name. If he prefers some other name I do not mind. If they were invited to go to Nigeria and work some coalmines that does not affect this duty at all. Their duty is still to develop efficient coalmining in Great Britain. Therefore we do not see the problem and the difficulty which the hon. Member for South Hendon visualises.
He said that these matters would be decided finally in the Courts. That may be, but in our view there need be no fear on the part of hon. Members opposite that this question of undue preference is not within the power of the Board to operate if they so decide in relation to foreign buyers, and that in relation to paragraphs (a) and (b) these matters in the Act are relative to Great Britain. No case has been made out for this Amendment, and I ask the House to reject it.

Colonel Clarke: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the position would be strengthened, in arguing with a foreign buyer about whether it was legal under the Measure to discriminate between foreign buyers, if the words of our Amendment were inserted rather than if he had to say, "Here it is in our Act. We are bound to do what is calculated to further the public interest"?

Mr. Robens: I do not accept that.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: I should like to answer the general argument with which the Parliamentary Secretary began his speech. The Clause to which this Amendment has been put down is very wide, and he discussed its general principles. We have an objection on what I might call purely commonsense grounds. We have not yet had an opportunity to discuss Clause 1, but we shall be able to do that on Third Reading. That changes the set-up in the Coal Board and reflects agreement that the National

Coal Board as it is now is not functioning properly and needs modification. Clause 2 does something quite different. It greatly extends the powers of the Board. It enables the Board to go outside the United Kingdom for the searching and winning of coal, for selling coal, for manufacturing and selling the products of coal, and for a great many other things.
We have a commonsense instinctive objection to that on the ground that an industrial organisation which has not yet shaken down, which has not yet proved that it can work smoothly and perform the tasks which were originally entrusted to it, should not be given a whole new range of duties. We have that objection simply because it is a sound maxim that one must do well what one is first given to do before one can go on to do something else. That is an every day occurrence in business. Experts come to a board of directors and say that they would like to manufacture two or three more products or go into two or three more markets. They say that the disappointing results achieved so far are due to the fact that they have not had sufficient scope. Every day boards of directors have to turn down applications like that, because it is a well-known experience in business that one must confine oneself to what one really knows how to do.
Up and down the country there is a feeling that the National Coal Board has not yet achieved what it was expected to do. Therefore, to put upon it a whole range of duties outside this country which must mean new departments at the head office, new branches and new functions put upon various members of the Board, is a very dangerous action to take at this moment. I would make that objection against the Clause whatever were the merits of the things which it was sought to add to the duties of the Coal Board. Time is not ripe for them: they have not yet done well what they were first entrusted to do.
When we consider what are the additional duties or opportunities put upon them, we find that the first is the winning of coal outside the United Kingdom. I know that some of my hon. Friends, rightly, put up an argument in Committee that it would be bad if the National Coal Board were to go off and


start mining coal with native labour somewhere or other in an overseas territory. Personally, I would leave it to the National Union of Mineworkers to restrain the pace at which the right hon. Gentleman starts winning coal abroad. I do not think that they would wish to have large new sources of coal opened up by the right hon. Gentleman. I am content to leave it with the trade union to put a brake upon that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for support from the hon. Gentleman opposite. The Minister said we might want to lend experts to assist in mining coal in Nigeria or some other place. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) that the National Coal Board could do that perfectly well now without this Clause. They could second a technician. It would be within their powers. Therefore, on that score they do not need this Clause at all.
I come to the important point, which is the sale of coal overseas. There was much confusion about this during the Committee stage. Hon. Members opposite were under the impression that a very large profit was made by the private exporters. The fact is that the coal is sold free-on-board by the National Coal Board who fix the price to the foreign buyer. All that the exporter gets is a commission of 6d. a ton for arranging the various bits and pieces of the business. The Minister has never denied that that was the method used. It must be well known to hon. Gentlemen opposite that the chairman of the Scottish Area Division has said that his division had made a profit because of the highly remunerative prices they were able to charge for their export coal.

Mr. Scollan: On the question of the 6d. a ton commission which has been paid for a very long time, would the hon. Member not agree that when a miner down a pit was getting 9d. a ton for digging coal out and taking it away and the exporter was getting 6d. a ton for coal he never saw except on his own fire, the exporter was well over-paid?

Mr. Eccles: I am afraid I would not agree. For that 6d. a ton the exporter must do a very great deal, including keeping offices abroad, fixing the insurance and arranging the freights.

Mr. James Glanville: In many cases all the exporter has to do is to pick up two telephones in one office.

Mr. Eccles: As a matter of fact, that is possible under certain contracts where they are renewed from time to time. It is always so when one is selling to a large range of clients and some come back time and again. After a firm has established its goodwill over a long time, there is very little to be done when an order is renewed. On the other hand, there are a whole lot of customers who require to be won away from competitors. It is because the coal exporters have a whole range of business that they have been able to do the work as cheaply as 6d. a ton.
What is the margin now over the home price of the price which is got for export coal? It is 25s. a ton. Two speeches were made last week, one by Lord Balfour who, I think, is the Scottish chairman, and the other by Sir Arthur Street, the deputy chairman of the National Coal Board. They both spoke of the importance of effecting reductions in the price of coal because it is becoming harder and harder to sell it. They said that it would not be possible to maintain the difference—which is up to 25s. a ton—on export coal in face of the expanding production in the Ruhr and in Poland.
I cite those speeches because they show how extremely important it is that we should maintain an organisation for selling coal which is most likely to achieve the largest volume of sales. The target in the four-year plan is, I think, 40 million metric tons of coal exports by 1952. That is a tremendous target to hit, and our chief complaint against this Clause is that it is upsetting an organisation for selling coal which is working very well. I say that on the Minister's authority, because during the Commitee stage he said that the relations of the National Coal Board with the exporters were very happy, and I believe that that is confirmed by those in the trade. The Minister is asking for this power to hold it in reserve as a threat, but I say that that is simply bad business, because it destroys the confidence between himself and the exporters. It is not possible suddenly to take their places. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that it is not the intention to do so, but


this is a threat to take the place of people who have had these agencies for selling coal for so long. It will destroy the confidence between them and the Coal Board, and we cannot afford it.
As the competition in selling coal abroad increases, as it is going to increase, and very rapidly in my view, we shall need every selling advantage we can get, and one advantage which we shall have is that the Polish mines, and I think certain others as well, sell their coal through nationalised agencies, while we do not. It may be that up to now it as been so easy to sell coal, and that the foreign buyer has not been able to pick and choose between the private selling agency and the State selling agency. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that as soon as coal become more difficult to sell the foreigner will take it from the private agency every time. The reason is clear. The supply of fuel is basic to the economy of every country, and those countries which have no coal in their own territories to provide a supply of fuel for their own needs look with extreme jealousy upon people who have to supply them from outside. They will not want, if they can help it, to take coal from one of these bunkering stations, which sell oil as well as coal. They will not want to take it from a State agency if they can get it from a private one, because they treat the private agency like one of their own firms. It is on all fours with their own business, in the eyes of the law. Once we have a State agency coming in, if there is any trouble we cannot remedy it, exactly as His Majesty's Government cannot argue with the Argentine Government over the meat; the matter has to be dealt with through the Embassies.

Mr. Cecil Poole: The hon. Gentleman has referred to coal from the Ruhr and Poland. Which of these will provide a private agency for the sale of coal?

Mr. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman entirely misses the point. The fact that the Poles are selling their coal through a State agency gives us the chance to get the business, because we are engaged in a partnership with the nationalised production here and private selling agencies abroad. Let him consider this point. These bunkering stations, with all their

foreshore rights and large stopping places, are in very strategic points in harbours abroad. They can compete with the local coal merchants and also provide for oil tanks. Which of us would like to have a Russian installation of that kind in the Port of London?

Mr. C. Poole: Under a Conservative administration before the war, Russian Oil Products had a very valuable concession and agency in this country.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Eccles: They did not enjoy foreshore rights and all the things which the bunkering stations have, and we should not like to have them now, at any rate, The foreign countries are highly suspicious of this, and I had experience of it during the first two years of the war in neutral countries. We were very fortunate indeed to have had those British bunkering stations round the world in private hands, and the services rendered by them were enormous. No foreign Government will tolerate these stations becoming an agency of another State. I do not think the Minister intends to do that, and he has often said that all he wants is to have this threat in the background. I say that he has not given us a reason for disturbing trade with a foreign power for any good purpose.
Let him carry on with the situation as it is now, and let him also consider that we cannot carry out nationalisation to the very end product wherever it is going. If we try to do that every time an industry is nationalised, and we try to see that the State keeps its hand on that product until it gets to the final consumer, we shall have a totalitarian economy before we know where we are. All these basic products seep through the economy in one way or another, and we should end up by having control of everything in one hand. That is not possible. Is it not much more fruitful to marry the private sector of our economy with the public sector in a confident partnership? That is what we have today, and this Clause is a foolish one, because it strikes at the confidence which exists today, or which did exist until this Clause appeared in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will take it away.
So far as the little point in the Amendment itself is concerned, it goes so small a way to correcting the evils of the Clause that I regret very much that I am unable


to vote against the Clause as a whole, instead of against the Amendment, but, if the Parliamentary Secretary is correct and the power to discriminate exists already, that will satisfy me, though some of my hon. Friends who have a great deal of experience in these legal matters disagree with him. I end by saying that the coal export trade is rapidly becoming more difficult, and to introduce complications of this kind for no reason that I can see, except the theoretical reason that it would be a good thing for the nationalised industry to have control of its own products to the very last customer everywhere, will disturb that world-wide system of selling agencies that has served us so well, and, therefore, the Clause is a bad Clause.

Mr. Pryde: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not very consistent in their arguments. On the previous Amendment, the argument was that we should have a change; on this occasion, it is argued that we should not have a change. In the earlier discussions, mention was made of the 1911 Act, and, strangely enough, the man who was responsible for that Act, who was then President of the Board of Trade, is the present Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). On this occasion, the argument is that we should not have a change and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has told us that the National Coal Board has not yet met its responsibilities and settled down.
The National Coal Board took over the mines at a time when private enterprise had reduced the mining industry of this country to the most critical position in which it had ever been. The Coal Board took over 1,500 collieries, a million acres of land, and 100,000 houses, and it had at its disposal only 699,000 men, which was the lowest figure for something like 70 years. In view of the great economic position that coal has played in the history of this country, I suggest that, since the Coal Board have recruited men to the mines—to the old mines, the worn-out mines—because they have restored to that industry something like a workable relationship between employer and employee, they have gone a fair way. They have gone further than private enterprise at any time to-

wards solving the mining problem of this country.
The hon. Member for Chippenham told us that he was going to advance a common-sense argument. I say to him in all sincerity—and I am going to use his own words—that it is only common sense that the product of this most important industry should not be in the hands of private enterprise which could exercise a stranglehold on the industry at any particular time. We must, therefore, employ the philosophy of hon. Members on this side of the House—the greatest good for the greatest number. We must see that the mining industry of this country is utilised, both at home and abroad, in the interests of all the people of the Realm. As the Minister said, the National Coal Board must be endowed with power to supply the coal in order to meet the needs of this country.
Nigeria has been mentioned. I have in my possession the report of a speech made by a prominent Front Bencher of the Conservative Party to the Empire Parliamentary Association of this House, in which he said:
I visited Nigeria. I travelled on nationalised railways drawn by nationalised engines, and saw nationalised trains going into nationalised collieries and bringing nationalised coal to the ports and shipping it to Lagos at 19s. 6d. a ton, cheaper than private enterprise.
Coal may be found in Nigeria, in the Arctic, or in the Antarctic. The time may come when it will be absolutely necessary for this country to produce more coal than we are producing today. The attitude of hon. Members opposite is simply to circumscribe the activities of the National Coal Board as the avenue for the production of coal in this country.
In the course of their arguments, hon. Members opposite have mentioned prices. Upstairs in Committee we had a great argument on prices and on transfer prices. Hon. Members opposite challenged the veracity of statements made by some of my hon. Friends. I wish to refresh the memories of hon. Members. I can appreciate the position of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and his diffidence about entering into arguments with regard to a Royal Commission. But if hon. Members care to refer to the evidence submitted, and admitted, before


the Samuel Commission, they will find that there were considerable differences in regard to transfer prices. Mr. Gordon, the accountant for the employees side on submitting evidence to the Commission, intimated, in contradiction to Sir William McClintock, who stated that transfer prices had reached a difference of 1s. 6d. per ton, that they had, in fact, reached a difference of 3s. 6d. a ton. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well how that arose. We are determined that there shall never be any more cheap miners in this country, because cheap coal means cheap miners. In Scotland in 1905, we were shipping coal f.o.b. at Leith at 5s. 9d. a ton, and miners' wages were 5s. 6d. a day. Not until after 1915 did the average local price of coal in Scotland rise to 10s. a ton. Let me remind the House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I think the hon. Gentleman ought to confine himself more to the export of coal than to the home market and the cost of coal at home.

Mr. Pryde: I was referring to the export price of coal at Leith. The export price of coal in Scotland did not reach 10s. a ton until after 1915. I am referring especially to the export price, because Scotland is an exporting country.
I want to point out to hon. Members that things are moving very quickly in the coalmining industry today. Already the machinery which has been put into the mines in Midlothian—American machinery—has been found to be useless, and is now being taken out again. That is why we want the Board to have full powers to meet the new, varying conditions. We firmly believe that if this Clause were not passed the National Coal Board would be entangled in such complications as would restrict its activities and make it, what hon. Members opposite have alleged it to be, a nonsuccess.
This has been described as a small Bill and hon. Members said that there would be other Bills. I welcome the remarks of the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) who spoke of a great new Bill. I think that on this occasion we can all unite in paying the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary the greatest possible compliment on the

way they have piloted this Bill through Committee and for asking that the National Coal Board should be given the necessary power to meet the needs of the people of this country with regard to coal. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will also co-operate with us in this because they know perfectly well that if the National Coal Board is left to the mercy of private enterprise, it will not be able to play the important part in the country's economy that it should.

Mr. J. Foster: I shall not follow the hon. Member for South Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) in his after-dinner eulogy of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, but I wish to comment on the very curious attitude which he adopted towards this Clause and the National Coal Board. In the first place, he appeared, like so many of his hon. Friends opposite, to disregard the war. He said that the coal industry was at its lowest level when the National Coal Board took over and that the labour force then available was the lowest ever. I suppose he has forgoten all about the Germans and does not remember that we were engaged in a war which resulted in many activities being brought to a very low level.

Mr. McAdam: The hon. Member forgets the national stoppages in the industry in 1921 and 1922 when the party opposite played their part in bringing the industry into the condition mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman and I are to discuss the effect of those stoppages, I think he would agree that in 1937 and 1938 we were exporting more coal than, owing to the war, we were in 1945. It is quite inadmissible for the hon. Member for South Midlothian and Peebles to disregard the war and to say that it was the Tories who brought the coal industry down to this low level, and that when the National Coal Board took it over it began to improve. Even under a Socialist Government, things had to improve a little bit when we stopped fighting and returned to peace-time conditions.

Miss Herbison: Would the hon. Member deny that for many years before the 1939 war there was a dwindling manpower in the in-


dustry? I agree fully with my hon. Friend that it was due to the private owners and to the Governments of those days.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Foster: That brings me to the next point which was made by the hon. Member for South Midlothian and Peebles. He alluded to the export prices. Surely, the answer both to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member is that it is the foreign buyer who fixes the export prices. If less coal is required for export it is due to expanding production abroad. It is in no sense the fault of this country or of any section of the industry. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that even the National Coal Board cannot fix the export price of coal and say to people abroad, "You shall pay this price, and you shall not take coal from France or from the Ruhr where it is cheaper."
The hon. Member for South Midlothian and Peebles, referred to Nigeria. I would only ask him whether he will make his peace with the union members of his industry on the subject of cheap coal produced abroad. It seems to me that he was advocating that the National Coal Board should go round the world getting coal produced for cheap wages. I am sure the members of his industry will not agree to that.

Mr. Pryde: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that the union to which I have the honour to belong has never been backward in using its influence in trying to raise the standard of every worker in every part of the world.

Mr. Foster: That may be so; indeed, I am sure it is, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that point in his argument.
I want to deal with the Parliamentary Secretary's argument about undue preference, which arises out of the question of the National Coal Board entering the export business. The Parliamentary Secretary entirely failed to make his case. He should have satisfied the House that there were strong reasons for the National Coal Board wanting to go into the export trade. The only reasons given were those given by the hon. Member for South Midlothian and Peebles, and his argument seemed to amount to this: here was something which was working well and, therefore, it should be

nationalised, otherwise something dreadful would happen. That is probably the argument which has been applied to the nationalisation of steel. In this case the argument seems to be: "If you see anything working well, get the National Coal Board to take it over." The Parliamentary Secretary should have advanced stronger arguments.
The only argument he could advance was that there should be a threat, that there should be lurking in the background this power in the hands of the National Coal Board so that people should be kept up to the mark if they were not exporting coal properly. That is a misunderstanding of the situation. The interest of the exporters is to export coal. The hon. Member for South Midlothian and Peebles alluded to the exporters strangling the coal industry. That is a complete misconception. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which exporters would try to strangle the industry which is providing their very livelihood in the export of coal.
Turning to the narrow question of undue preference, as I understand it, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister, my hon. Friends who have moved and supported this Amendment, as well as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) all agree that it is desirable that the Board should have the power, if it wishes, to exercise an undue or unreasonable preference against a foreign buyer. Let us leave out the word "unreasonable." I understand that is borne out in column 234 of the Report of the proceedings in Committee upstairs. The Parliamentary Secretary's answer was that this Clause already makes that provision. He said that in Section 1 (1, c) of the principal Act the words "calculated to further the public interest" were included, and that if it was in the public interest to exercise a preference against a foreign buyer, then the National Coal Board had that power. This is purely a legal argument, but I submit that the hon. Gentleman's advice was wrong.
It seems to me quite clear that the National Coal Board is given the duty of making supplies of coal available at such prices, in such quantities and of such quality as is in the public interest, and that the words "in the public interest"


only qualify those three things—qualities, quantities and prices. The words "including the avoidance of any undue or unreasonable preference" are mandatory on the Coal Board. It does not lie in the Coal Board to decide whether a preference is or is not in the public interest. If the hon. Gentleman's argument were correct, the Coal Board would be allowed to exercise an undue preference in this country if it considered it was in the public interest. It is quite clear from the Debates of the Committee proceedings of the principal Act that it is the general understanding on both sides of the House, by all officials and all advisers, that the Coal Board cannot exercise any undue preference with regard to the consumers in this country. The reason is that the Act says that they cannot so exercise it. If the phrase was qualified by the words "provided they think it is in the public interest" they could exercise an undue preference in this country. We know they cannot do so.
Therefore, as on this point we all want the same thing, I ask the Minister to look at this matter again, to see whether his advice is really correct, and to see whether the words "in the public interest" only qualify quantities, qualities and prices, and that the words "including the avoidance of any undue or unreasonable preference" are part of the duty laid on the Coal Board to avoid this in all cases. I say "in all cases" because this provision is applicable both inside and outside Great Britain, and if that is so the Coal Board cannot exercise the preference abroad. This may be a very important matter because the Government, in bargaining with another Government such as the Argentine, may

want to pay for their food in coal; in fact, one has already seen something of the sort reported in the papers. The Government of the Argentine are asking for export coal. If a certain price cannot be agreed with the Argentine, it will be very awkward for the right hon. Gentleman and for the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of Health if they find that they have made yet another mistake about Argentine food. First, they pay in advance and now they do not know whether they will get back the money owing to them; then they strike a new bargain, and they find that they cannot pay the price required because they have been wrongly advised on whether or not they can give a preference to the Argentine—a situation in which it may be to the interest of this country to give a preference.

This matter is not just a kind of lawyer's academic argument. It has a practical effect. I am aware that it would be necessary to brief the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food properly on this matter. If there is any argument about it, surely it is better that the Minister should make it clear in the Bill rather than to have an unseemly argument between himself and the Argentine Government. Therefore, I ask him to consider the reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary. Further, he should look at the wording and see whether the phrase "including the avoidance of any undue or unreasonable preference," apart from the qualifying words, is not calculated to further the public interest in all respects.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 216.

Division No. 89.]
AYES
[6.42 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Eccles, D. M.
Langford-Holt, J.


Assheton, Rt Hon. R.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Birch, Nigel
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Bower, N.
Gage, C.
Linstead, H. N.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Low, A. R W


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H


Carson, E.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Cuthbert, W. N
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Keeling, E. H.
Mellor, Sir J.


Drewe, C.
Lambert, Hon, G.
Nicholson, G.




Nield, B. (Chester)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Walker-Smith, D


Orr-Ewing, I. L
Spearman, A. C. M.
Watt, Sir G S. Harvie


Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Studholme, H. G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, J P. L. (Hereford)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Thorneycroft, G. E P. (Monmouth)



Ropner, Col. L.
Touche, G C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Turtan, R. H.
Colonel Wheatley and


Sanderson, Sir F.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby.


Savory, Prof. D. L.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.





NOES


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Gunter, R. J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Allen, A C (Bosworth)
Hale, Leslie
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Proctor, W. T.


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Pryde, D. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Hardman, D. R.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Hardy, E. A.
Randall, H. E.


Bacon, Miss A.
Harrison, J
Ranger, J.


Barstow, P. G.
Haworth, J.
Reeves, J.


Barton, C.
Henderson, Rt. Hr. A. (Kingswinford)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Battley, J. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Rhodes, H.


Bechervaise, A. E
Hewitson, Capt. M
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Benson, G.
Hobson, C. R.
Robens, A.


Berry, H
Holman, P.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Horabin, T. L.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Blenkinsop, A.
Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)


Boardman, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Bowden, Flg. Offr H. W
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Royle, C.


Bramall, E. A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Scollan, T.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Sharp, Granville


Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Simmons, C. J.


Bruce, Maj. D W T.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Skinnard, F. W.


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Byers, Frank
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Solley, L. J.


Callaghan, James
Keenan, W
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chater, D.
Kenyon, C
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd, G. R
Kinley, J.
Stamford, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Kirby, B. V
Stross, Dr. B.


Cocks, F S.
Lang, G.
Taylor, R. J..(Morpeth)


Collick, P.
Lavers, S
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Collindridge, F
Lawson, Rt. Hon, J. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Collins, V J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Leslie, J. R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Cooper, G.
Levy, B. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cove, W. G.
Lipson, D. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawley, A.
Lipton, Lt-Col. M
Timmons, J.


Daggar, G.
Lyne, A. W
Tolley, L.


Dairies, P.
McAdam, W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McEntee, V La T
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McGhee, H. G
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Mack, J. D.
Wadsworth, G


Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Walkden, E.


Deer, G.
Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Warbey, W. N.


Dodds, N. N
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Watkins, T. E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mainwaring, W H.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Edelman, M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John.(Edinb'gh, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mothers, Rt. Hon. George
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Medland, H. M.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Messer, F.
Wigg, George


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Evans, John (Ogmere)
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Farthing, W. J.
Monslow, W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington., E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Follick, M.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Foot, M. M
Murray, J. D.
Williams, W. R. (Reston)


Forman, J. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N.
Paget, R. T.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Wise, Major F J


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pargiler, G. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gibson, C W.
Parker, J.
Yates, V. F.


Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Parkin, B. T.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Zilliacus, K.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Pearson, A.



Grierson, E.
Peart, T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Hannan.

Clause 3.—(TERMINATION OF CERTAIN LONG-TERM CONTRACTS TRANSFERRED TO THE BOARD.)

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out "the."
It may be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment a series of other Amendments which are all drafting Amendments to achieve a comparatively small alteration in the text. I mean the Amendments to page 3, lines 12, 19, 26, 35, 37, 44, and 45, and page 4, line 26. They all hang together, and are designed to remove a doubt, which was felt in particular by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). He felt some concern as to the exact meaning of the word "provisions" in subsection (2) of the Clause. This series of Amendments is designed to put it beyond doubt that the provisions there referred to, which can be the subject of a notice of determination, are the same provisions referred to in subsection (1).

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This series of Amendments goes some way to meet the comments we had to make on the subject of the drafting of this Clause. The next Amendment, an Opposition Amendment, which is, I believe, to be called, is closely allied with this one. We welcome this series of Amendments as far as it goes, and I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having put the Amendments down.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out, "or include terms which provide."
This Clause gives power to the National Coal Board to put an end to certain contracts. They are expressed to be long-term contracts, and I think there is no doubt from what we have heard that they will all be contracts of an important character. They are not trifling contracts, but ones which deal with large supplies and which will often be complicated. I am grateful to have the opportunity of raising this matter again. I raised it in Committee. The Government indicated that they had some sympathy with the purpose for which I raised the matter, and I hope they will now indicate that they will accept the Amend-

meat, or, at any rate, that they will consider making further Amendments themselves at a later stage.
In a sense the Amendment is a drafting Amendment, but I think it does raise the main issue which we raised upstairs, in that the difficulty which we feel about this Clause as a whole is that we do not know what the Government really intend by the Clause. Our real difficulty is that we have no information. We have been dealing with this Clause completely in the realm of hypothesis. The Minister, the Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary Secretary have all from time to time muttered—that is the only suitable word, I think—something about "bad contracts," at which, if we knew the particulars, we should hold up our hands in horror, and with which the Coal Board ought not to be burdened, but might be burdened for many years to come.
But we have heard no particulars of those contracts. I am not suggesting that it is the duty of the Government necessarily to give us a schedule showing the dates and the parties and all the rest of it, but if the Government are asking for powers as wide as the powers which appear to be taken by this Clause, it is at least their duty to tell us something of the number of contracts that they think will be affected by this Clause, and to give us some sort of idea about the size and the general nature of these contracts.
I should like the Minister to tell us—I do not say precisely, because he may not know precisely—but in round figures how many contracts have been brought to his attention by the National Coal Board upon which he thinks that they will wish to use this Clause. Is it of the order of two or three? Is it ten or a dozen? Is it one hundred or hundreds? Or is it thousands? We have no idea. We have never been given that information.
I think before the House passes a Clause of this kind we should be given some indication of what the Government have in their minds. In the meantime the position is entirely at large, and we do not know what the Clause is really aimed at. I think that we can say that, in view of the fact that the contracts are long-term, they will normally be heavy and complicated, and that they will contain a number of terms. In the ordinary way the long-term contract, which will have


been taken over by the National Coal Board under the terms of Section 7 of the principal Act, will be a contract involving the supply of various goods and services from one party to the other, and, possibly, compensating money payments, and so on. One can only speculate. In any particular case a contract of that kind may involve the supply of coal, perhaps—I am talking of the original contract—by the colliery, a supply of steam or electricity by the colliery company to some other concern, and possibly the supply by that other concern of water or some other service to the colliery company.

Mr. T. Brown: I think the hon. Member is making a statement which cannot be sustained. The Minister in Committee upstairs did give the number of contracts. He said there were round about 40 which they desired to terminate.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that interruption. I was in the Committee practically the whole time, but it so happens that that fact had escaped my notice. However, we may, perhaps, ask the Minister to confirm if that is still the position. I apologise if I have said anything to mislead the House. Speculating as to the nature of the contracts—and.we have nothing to indicate the general nature of the contracts —I am assuming that they will be of the kind which I have described, involving a number of sales of services as between the parties involved.
Our attitude on this side of the House is this. There may be contracts which, in view of the nationalisation of the coalmines and in all the circumstances, it would be desirable to have terminated on payment of fair compensation. If we were given specific examples we could express our views on those examples. I am not denying that there could not be such contracts, but what we say is that if any such contract were brought forward, it should be up to the National Coal Board either to put an end to the whole of that contract or to put an end to a very precisely defined part of that contract.
7.0 p.m.
It must be remembered that however onerous the contract may be against the other party to the contract the other party has no option in the matter at all. It is the National Coal Board alone which

is to be given the power to bring to an end any of these contracts or parts of contracts. In these circumstances, we feel that it should not be left to the National Coal Board to pick and choose between the various parts of a contract because that would be unfair.
In the example which I gave, it may well be that a part of the contract for the supply of coal falls within the general terms of the Clause. It should be only open to the National Coal Board to say that the whole of the contract must be put an end to, or, alternatively, only so much of it as precisely falls within the meaning of the Clause. The words in the Clause by implication enable the National Coal Board to choose, because the Clause says:
This section applies to the provisions of any contract…being provisions—
(a) which provide, or include terms which pr ovide,"—
That is to say, the National Coal Board can take any part of a contract they please, and, so long as it includes one small part which falls within the meaning of the rest of the Clause, they can say that that part comes within the provisions of "terms which provide" and, in that way, they can take as much or as little of the contract as they please in order to bring it to an end. We think that that is quite unfair.
We wished in an Amendment moved upstairs to give the other party to the contract the right to say to the National Coal Board, "If you are going to determine part of this contract, we are going to determine the rest of it." If an Amendment of that kind were included, there would be no unfairness in giving the National Coal Board the power to pick and choose as they please because there would be reciprocity. If we give the whole power to the Coal Board and to no one else, we must clearly state in the body of the Act what that power is, because it is wrong to allow the Coal Board to end part of a contract and at the same time to maintain the rest of the contract in force.
I hope that the House will realise that without the Amendment, we are enabling the Coal Board to throw off the trammels of any old contract falling within the Clause merely on the ground that it would interfere with them in the course of their duty; but however onerous that contract


may be to some other concern, and however much it may interfere with that other concern in the course of carrying on their trade or activities, they will be given no option whatever and the contract will continue to run.
We have to see, however much the Government say that contracts ought to be dealt with in this way, that these contracts are extremely narrow in limit. I think that before we pass such a Clause as this we ought to get something more definite from the Government as to what they intend to do. The words which we seek to delete give the Coal Board a wide choice in the matter and that is why we object to them.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would, in passing, like to refer to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), in which he reminded us that the Minister said that there were probably about 40 of these contracts. That was really the only information which we were given. The Minister tried to make our flesh creep by reminding us of a contract for 1,000 tons of coal per year in perpetuity at 5s. a ton on a contract dated 1919, and I asked him:
Would it be too much to ask the quality of the coal at this price?
He said:
I am afraid it would, at this stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 3rd February, 1949; c. 319.]
The quality of the coal makes a tremendous difference because there are some sorts of coal for which if one got 5s. a ton in perpetuity one would be extremely lucky—sludges and slurries, etc.—which for many years between 1919 and the present day have been quite un-saleable. I regret that we were not given more information of that kind. I support what my hon. Friend has said about the power of the Coal Board to determine such parts of a contract as they wish. That seems to me to be quite unfair.

The Solicitor-General: I hope to be able to satisfy the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Amendment, but I am afraid that we cannot see our way to advise the House to accept it. There were two points raised in support of the Amendment. The first was

that sufficient information had not been given with regard to the contracts which the Government had in mind, and the second was that there was too much latitude left to the Board as to the provisions under which they could be terminated. With regard to the number of contracts, I am told there are about 40 which would come within the purview of the Clause. They fall into three broad categories.
There are, first, the contracts for the sale of coal. I could give some examples. The Minister gave an example upstairs which has been referred to again. If I may give another one, I shall do so without the use of names and only the use of initials. There is a case in which A will deliver coal to B and B will take from A all the coal required for the purpose of the business of B, which is to be delivered not more than 14 days after the receipt of the order. Unless otherwise agreed it consists of x and y type of coal, and in respect of any order given not less than 65 per cent. shall consist of x coal and of the remainder not less than 10 per cent. shall consist of y coal. That contract is to continue for a long period of time.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Sir H. Lucas-Tooth rose—

The Solicitor-General: If I may be allowed to continue I should like to give one or two cases of these long-term contracts. I am not trying to make anyone's flesh creep by a description of these contracts. On the contrary, I am saying that the Coal Board is charged under Section 1 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, with certain duties with which the House is familiar. These duties may make it necessary, if they are to be adequately discharged in the public interest, that a change should be made. For example, if particular pits are to be closed down or particular seams are not to be worked, the Coal Board finds itself in this position. If it is found, as it is, under terms of long-term contracts that the obligation which it assumes under those contracts will, in many cases, prevent it carrying out the type of reorganisation which I have just mentioned—for example, closing pits, or not working seams—the result may be that the Board will be seriously hampered in carrying out the statutory duties imposed upon them by the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946.
That is one type of long-term contract. I could give others. For instance, "C" agrees to supply from "S's" colliery all coal required for "D's" works—I use initials, although I could give the names —upon the same or as good terms at the pithead as the most favoured customer of "C" on a long-term contract which, if it has to be implemented for the whole period of its currency, may result—and, indeed, in the case of the Coal Board that may well be the case—in the Board being hampered in the execution of the duties placed upon them by Statute in carrying out measures of reorganisation which seem necessary for the purpose of discharging those duties.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Solicitor-General has given two examples, for which I am grateful. Can he say whether those were all the terms of the contracts, or were they merely particular terms in much larger contracts dealing with a number of other questions? That is extremely important in connection with this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Baronet has, I am certain, seen enough of these contracts to know that what I have just read out would not be all the terms of the contract. Quite obviously, there are long and complex contracts with a number of inter-related provisions. All I am trying to do is to give the gist of them and to underline and emphasise those characteristics which seem to call for notice under the terms of the Bill when the contracts are of long-term operation because by virtue of their long-term operation they interfere with the Coal Board in the discharge of their duties and prevent them, or may prevent them, from carrying out necessary measures of re-organisation.
There are then two other categories which correspond to the two other sub-paragraphs of paragraph (a). There are agency agreements, where, for example, a distributor is appointed to be the sole and exclusive agent for the disposal of the entire output of the products of colliery concerns for a period of 15, 20 or 21 years, with an option to the agent to extend for a further 21 or 25 years, or even indefinitely. That is another type of long-term contract the continuing provisions of which hamper the Coal Board in the discharge of its duties. There are contracts entered into long ago—I am

not suggesting for a moment that they were entered into in contemplation or with the object of evading the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act—which because of their long-term operation have the effect I have indicated.
There is the third category of contracts embraced in this approximate number of 40 to which I have referred, in which are found restrictive covenants. The agreement generally deals with taking over the business and goodwill of a colliery concern so far as it relates to sales in a particular area, and the firm is sold with a covenant not to engage in business within the area. That is a long-term contract with a restrictive covenant, which will necessarily have the result of hampering the Coal Board in carrying out necessary changes for the performance of their duties.
Those are contracts that we had in mind. They are contracts differing in their scope and extent, but contracts of considerable complication, with various provisions in them. In those circumstances there are really only two alternatives before the Government: either to take no steps with regard to that and see the Coal Board hampered—and considerably hampered—in the carrying out of their duties, or to come to Parliament and ask for the powers sought by this Bill. The Government felt that the second of those alternatives was the appropriate course.
7.15 p.m.
The question really is—and this leads me to the second point made by the hon. Baronet—whether we have gone too far. His point is that we have enabled the Coal Board to pick and choose at will the provisions of a contract. Now, we have carefully avoided doing that. In our earlier discussions I deployed certain arguments, which I would not seek to repeat in detail because I think they must be fresh in the mind of the hon. Baronet. However, as other hon. Members were not then present, perhaps I may re-state my arguments quite shortly. We say that the Coal Board is to have the right to determine certain provisions. Now, what are those provisions? To find out what they are one has to look at Clause 3 (1), which says that these provisions must have three separate sets of characteristics. First, they must be long-term; in other words, they must be provisions whereof the operation cannot be determined by


the Board before the end of the year 1951. Secondly, they must vest in the Coal Board under the provisions of Section 7 of the 1946 Act, taken in conjunction with the Second Schedule to that Act; that is to say, they must be, broadly speaking, "coal" contracts—if I may use a general and comprehensive term—describing what is referred to in the Schedule. Thirdly, they must be provisions which only do what is described in the three sub-paragraphs of paragraph (a), or they must include amongst their terms some terms which do.
If it can be said of the provisions that they fulfil all those three characteristics the Coal Board are then given only one right. They are not given the right to pick out of those provisions some provisions which they will determine and others which they will leave operative. They are given only the right to determine all those provisions lock, stock and barrel. I hope the hon. Baronet and his hon. Friend will agree that we have not been unreasonable in this. What we have done is to tell the Coal Board: "If you wish to exercise your right all these provisions must go; you cannot pick and choose amongst them." That is what we have carefully done in drafting this Clause, and for those reasons I hope the hon. Baronet will agree not only that the Amendment is unnecessary, but that its adoption would impair the effect of the Clause as it stands.

Mr. C. Williams: The speech of the Solicitor-General is one of the most blatant I have ever heard advocating the cancellation of contracts. It is a commonplace that in all contracts there are two sides. The whole of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that the Government have discovered that the former coalowners, who their opponents tell us are such very hard-headed business men, made a certain number of bad contracts. The Government now say, as I understand it, that the Coal Board must cancel these contracts if they are to carry out the duties laid upon them by the House of Commons. I hope I am not misrepresenting the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In other words, to put it even shorter, the Coal Board's duties are to make the industry pay and prosper.
To give the Coal Board power to revoke any contract entered into under

certain headings, such as those in this Clause, is to do something quite wrong. Hon. Members opposite may talk very glibly about cancelling these old contracts, and they may say that these contracts are not in the interests of the Coal Board. But what about the other party to the contracts? These people have entered into these engagements and kept them faithfully. If the contracts turned against them, would they be able to go to the Coal Board and say, "We have a contract with you, and we must have the power to cancel it"? I do not think so.
My hon. Friend was quite right in drawing attention to the fact that the Government are openly advocating the cancellation of contracts made for particular purposes. It cannot be to the benefit of the Coal Board when it is known that this sort of thing is happening. If the Coal Board get the name of being a contract breaker it will not help them in their salesmanship capacity, especially when it comes to selling coal outside the country. I ask the Government whether it would not be better to stick to the old British tradition in our legislation. To use the power of the House of Commons to break these contracts does not add to our honour, and it is something I thoroughly dislike. I hope that my hon. Friends will also take the view that the breaking of contracts cannot be justified.

Mr. McCorquodale: Despite the fact that the Government are not accepting this Amendment, we do not propose to divide the House but prefer to have a more general discussion on a later Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 3, line 12. leave out "the."
Consequential Amendments made.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, at the end, to insert:
(5) If in the case mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section any question shall arise—

(a) which of the provisions of the contract are provisions to which this section applies; or
(b) as to any apportionments or adaptations made necessary by reason of the determination of some only of the provisions of the contract; or


(c) whether the continuance in force of provisions of the contract other than provisions to which this section applies would cause hardship to the purchaser agent or transferee;

such question shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration under the principal Act and subsection (2) of section sixty-one of that Act shall apply accordingly.
This Amendment is also concerned with the disruption of contracts. It raises the wider issue of the question of fairness. Provision is made in subsection (4) for arbitration in respect of those contracts which are to be put an end to by the action of the Coal Board. The compensation provided for is extremely limited in character; it is as to any question whether compensation is payable at all, and as to the amount of the compensation so paid. This Amendment seeks to put forward a number of other issues which are really important in connection with this arbitration. In the first place, there is the question of which of the provisions of the contract are provisions to which this Clause applies. No one can say that the Clause as drafted is a very easy Clause to understand, although we now have better particulars of the kind of contract to which it is intended this shall apply. The Solicitor-General, in reply to my interruption, pointed out that the contracts in question are likely to be of a highly complex character. It will be very difficult to disentangle these contracts when only part of them are to be terminated.
The Amendment I am moving relates only to those contracts as are determined in subsection (2, a). The House will see that that is in the case of contracts comprising provisions other than provisions to which this Clause applies. It is only in the case where a contract is torn into parts by virtue of this Clause that arbitration is called for. Then there is the question of making the necessary apportionment or adaptations, which is a matter where dispute can very easily arise. I do not know the Government's intentions in this regard. Is it intended that where a contract is forcibly torn apart it shall rest solely with the Coal Board to say what apportionment or adaptations are to be made? It may be that "apportionment" is taken care of by the wording of subsection (4). Perhaps we can have assurance on that point.
As regards adaptation, it is necessary to make some provision, and that should be done in the manner indicated by this Amendment. There is then the wider question of hardship. I submit that the Clause as drafted may produce some very grave instances of hardship. Obviously, to give a right to one party to put an end to the contract when a similar right is denied to the other party is something that is likely to create severe hardship. Obviously, in the class of case to which the Solicitor-General recently referred, the Coal Board will be ready to put an end to contracts which are onerous to them. I appreciate from the tenor of his remarks that it is not so much the burden of the contracts to which the Coal Board are objecting as the interference to the working of the National Coal Board.
I think I am right in saying that if the Coal Board find themselves in the position of having a contract from which they derive a regular and steady benefit, it is most unlikely that they will be willing to put an end to it. Conversely, if they find a contract exceedingly onerous, they will look at it most carefully to see whether they cannot put an end to it under the terms of this Clause. In the case of the other party, they will have no opportunity at all, however burdensome the contract may be, to put an end to it. They may be supplying water, gas or electricity at 1929, 1920, 1914 or even 1900 prices, and be bound to continue to do so under the terms of the contract. There will obviously be very grave hardship. We cannot deal here with the class of case where the Coal Board take no action at all, but where the Coal Board do take action there should be some tribunal to see that the other party to the contract has his interests fairly looked after, and that he does not have torn away from him the one term in the contract available to him and be left obligations that may be very onerous indeed.
I think I can fairly raise, in this connection, the way in which the Government propose to bring these contracts to an end. It will be seen in subsection (2) of the Clause that contracts are to be treated as if they have been frustrated within the meaning of the Frustrated Contracts Act, 1943. The effect of doing that, I suggest, would be to bring into operation the whole business of re-


opening any contract which was determined ab initio.
I raised this question in Committee, when the Solicitor-General said in reply that it was not the intention of the Government that these contracts should be re-opened. But there is no doubt at all that the effect of the Frustrated Contracts Act would be to re-open a contract. Now that the Government have had an opportunity of looking into the matter are they satisfied that there is no question of old payments being re-opened as a result of this Clause or, alternatively, if those old payments are re-opened, will they concede our Amendment and allow arbitration which will take into account the hardship as between the two parties to the contract? I ask the House to accept the Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
It must be obvious to the Government that two wrongs do not make a right. The Coal Board have at present certain onerous contracts to fulfil—onerous not so much in the financial sense, but in the sense that they will disturb the working and the administration of the pits. It may be that in the national interest the burden of these contracts should be eased. We suggest that our Amendment provides a solution. Nobody else should be prejudiced while the Coal Board are getting themselves out of the difficulty. We believe that by a system of arbitration, hardship could be avoided.

The Solicitor-General: I think it would be within the spirit of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, if I travelled fairly wide in reply to the arguments which have been addressed to the House. In dealing with the right to determine contracts we have sought to achieve justice in this way: As the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) know very well, there are compensation provisions in this Clause which enable a party who has had his contract with the Board determined to receive compensation commensurate with the loss he has sustained as a result of that determination. There is full compensation subject to this: where there is a contract which, owing to its historical origin generally, has not been negotiated

on a commercial basis, where it is, in substance, too favourable to the purchaser, transferee or agent, as the case may be—perhaps when it was originally negotiated, years ago, there was an interlocking shareholding, or something of the sort—the contract is reduced to the state that it would be in if it had been negotiated at arm's length. The compensation paid is for the commercial loss he has sustained, and not for the loss of the exceptional advantage which may have accrued to him because he has an exceptionally favourable contract.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: How many contracts are there of this nature?

The Solicitor-General: That is a matter which will have to be investigated; they vary. There are both categories of contract. We provide that an arbitrator shall determine compensation. The hon. Member for South Hendon and the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead say that if there is disagreement with the method we have provided the arbitrator should not merely determine quantum of compensation but should also be entitled to determine three other things, as set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the Amendment.
As I understand the position—you, Mr. Speaker, not having called the preceding Amendments, which deal with hardship and adaptations—there cannot be a case in which it would fall to any arbitrator to make a determination under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Amendment and thus only (a) remains, which relates to the question whether the provisions of the contract are those to which the subsection applies. We have drawn the Clause in the form in which it is in the Bill because we think it would be more convenient for the parties that the question should go, in the first place, direct to the courts and not to the arbitrator. If a question arises between the purchaser, transferee and the Board whether the contract is one which is within the purview of the Clause as we have drawn it we believe that it should be for the court, in the first place, to decide that as a matter of law. It would be burdening the parties unnecessarily if that problem of law were submitted, in the first place, to an arbitrator who is appointed to assess the quantum. His determination would be likely to be subject to appeal to the court by way of case stated.
Of course, we hope that in the great majority of cases it will be apparent, on any prima facie reading of the contract, whether it is one which comes within the Clause or not. If, unhappily, a dispute should develop between the parties it should not be the arbitrator who has to determine that in the first instance, but the court. It should be for the arbitrator to determine the amount of compensation once the court has decided it within the meaning of the Act.
The hon. Member for South Hendon and the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead were concerned whether we had not by the wording we had used brought about a retrospective re-opening of the contracts right to the beginning. The hon. Member for South Hendon was concerned—if I may quote what he said upstairs—as to the possibility that these proceedings might result in the contracts in question being reopened back for some 10 or 15 years to the date when they were first entered into. I assured the hon. Member on that point upstairs, and I can assure him again, having considered the matter carefully, that that result will not ensue. If he would look at subsection (2), which deals with this question of frustration, he will see that the frustration is deemed to take effect only as between the Board on the one hand, and the purchaser, agent or transferee as the case may be, on the other. We have deliberately chosen these words in order to bring that about. If the vesting date is 1st January, 1947, and a notice of determination is given within the two years' period permitted by the Bill, the re-opening cannot take place in point of time beyond the date when the Coal Board became the substitute for a colliery concern as to the remaining period of the contract with the purchaser, agent or transferee. So the re-opening would only go back to that date and no further.
There was an Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite which sought to remove references to the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act, 1943, and that point was referred to by the hon. Member for South Hendon in support of this Amendment. We thought it better, on reflection, to retain that reference in the Bill. If the provisions of the Act are retained they bring about a result, which is more equitable as between the parties than would be brought about if the matter were left

to the common, as distinct from statutory, law. For that reason, in seeking to bring about the fairest issue in the event of a contract being determined, we seek to apply the provision of the 1943 Act, which, in effect, says that if one party has conferred any benefit under the contract the other must pay a reasonable sum for it. Supposing the former party conferred a benefit under the contract, he is entitled to say, "You shall not reopen to the extent of my not being entitled to recover a reasonable sum for the benefits I have conferred." As I pointed out, the Coal Board, in addition, compensate him for any loss which has eventuated as a result of the termination of the contract.
We have carefully considered this matter and tried to do justice in the case. It is beside the mark to talk about the dishonourable breaking of contracts. What we are seeking to do is to put the Coal Board, as representing the public, into the position in which, if they find they cannot carry out their duties and are impeded because of a long-term contract of this sort, they can terminate the contract, upon a proper and fair distribution of the benefits on each side and fair compensation being awarded by the arbitrator, who, in addition, will see that justice is done. If the Board are to be disembarrassed of long-term contracts, it will be at the cost of paying compensation to the person who will suffer as a result of the giving of the notice.
It was suggested that the purchaser, agent or transferee should have a correlative right in respect of any part of the contract which is not vested in the Coal Board under Section 7 of the 1945 Act. As was pointed out in the course of the discussion upstairs, that would be extremely difficult to bring about. Indeed, it would be an impossible situation, because that part of the contract would be part of the contract which still subsists between the purchaser, agent or transferee on the one side and the colliery concern on the other. Therefore, it would be impossible to give the purchaser, agent or transferee the right to determine that contract without giving the colliery concerned correlative rights, too, and we should have to introduce a whole set of further compensation provisions. It would be difficult to know exactly where we would land as a result of such successive provisions. In those circum-


stances, I hope that the House will agree that, in dealing with this position, we have fairly met it, and that in the difficult circumstances an adequate measure of justice has been done to the persons who would be affected by any determinations of this sort.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: The House will be grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the way he has dealt with these difficult points, and we are glad to know that there will be no "jobbing backwards" beyond 1947. I am not going into the various legal points. Indeed, the drafting of this and the succeeding Clause is enough to terrify any layman from reading a Bill again. As we have been given latitude in our comments on the Clause, I should like to say that we on this side dislike any weakening in the sanctity of contracts in general, which is a very serious matter and which we believe should only be undertaken when there is really on alternative. One of the reasons why there is deterioration in affairs both at home and abroad is that the belief has gone round the world that contracts do not really matter. Indeed, we are suffering under one at the present time—the meat contract with the Argentine.
Unless there is very real cause nothing that is contemplated in this Clause should be undertaken, because it makes an inroad into the principle of sanctity of contracts. There is one point which should be borne in mind—if these contracts, which it is now sought to terminate, had been a hindrance upon the profits of any of the pits when they were in operation under private enterprise so much less would have been the price by which the people, through the Government, purchased the pits. Therefore, there is no loss to the community by the running on of these contracts. The Parliamentary Secretary on the occasion of the Second Reading indicated that there were some horribly bad contracts, and that when the lid was taken off all sorts of nasty smells would come forth. Now we have learnt from the Solicitor-General in actual fact, that these contracts were proper contracts entered into—

The Solicitor-General: I did not go quite as far as that. I said I did not think they were all improper.

Mr. McCorquodale: We did not hear there was anything very serious about them except that they were very long-term contracts, and he was at pains to show that their long-term character made the carrying out of the obligations of the National Coal Board rather difficult. The Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Reading Debate called them peculiar contracts. He went on to say:
How can the Board assure that everyone gets a fair share of qualities and grades if they are committed to supplying 11,000,000 tons to specific individuals or firms?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1649.]
Prior to nationalisation there was no difficulty in supplying certain grades to certain individuals. Production and quality were at a high level, and it was a common practice for a firm or individual to contract for specific grades of coal from specific areas or specific pits. One of the companies with which I am connected had such a long-term contract, which finished about 1939, and which was profitable to both sides.
One of the most bitter and serious complaints against the Coal Board by many firms is that they cannot get for their boilers types of coal to which previously they were accustomed and which enabled them to run their businesses most effectively. We hope the Minister and everybody concerned will encourage the Coal Board to get ahead with providing the types of coal that industry needs.
The important point is that there are 40 contracts, mainly or mostly of a long-term nature. They do not appear to be very large. I should have thought that by a serious, concentrated effort, the National Coal Board, as reasonable people, could have made a working arrangement with the other parties to those contracts, without having to go through all this paraphernalia to allow the contracts to be broken. As the circumstances surrounding contracts change in ordinary business, reasonable people adjust their contracts accordingly. That process is going on in business every day and all day. The gravamen of my charge against the Ministry and against the Coal Board is that they have come to the House of Commons promoting a Bill and producing this extraordinary legal argument—I was going to say


"absurdity"—which is difficult for the layman to understand. We shall get into all sorts of difficulties in carrying it out. The whole matter is most unfortunate.
I am still unhappy about reciprocity, and it was apparent from the answer given by the Solicitor-General that he is unhappy about it, too. The position is getting so complicated that he did not see how it could be dealt with. That is another trouble we get into when we propose to break contracts instead of trying to deal fairly with people. I make a plea from this side of the House that we should regard contracts as sacred,

only to be interfered with by law as a very last resort. It is because we do not think that the Government have followed out every other method of getting out of these difficulties than that of coming to the House of Commons and asking leave by law to break contracts, that I am asking my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby against the Government on this Amendment and show their disapproval.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 212.

Division No. 90.]
AYES
[7.55 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Nicholson, G.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gridley, Sir A.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hare, Hen. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ropner, Col. L.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jennings, R.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Keeling, E. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Chanson, H.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Touche, G. C.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Low, A. R. W.
Tartan, R. H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Walker-Smith, D


Dodds-Parker, A. D
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Donner, P. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Eccles, D. M.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)



Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Mr. Studholme and




Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Colman, Miss G. M.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Alicn, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cooper, G.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Alpass, J. H.
Cove, W. G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Attewele, H. C.
Crawley, A.
Grierson, E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dagger, G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Daines, P
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gunter, R. J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hale, Leslie


Barstow, P. G.
Deer, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R


Bartley, J. R.
Diamond, J
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Debbie, W.
Hardman, D. R.


Benson, G.
Dodds, N. N.
Hardy, E. A.


Berry, H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Harrison, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Blenkinsop, A.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Houghton, S G.


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Haworth, J.


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Edelman, M.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Herbison, Miss M.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hewitson, Capt. M


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hobson, C. R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Holman, P.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Burden, T. W.
Ewart, R.
Horabin, T. L.


Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)
Farthing, W. J
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Chetwynd. G. R.
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Cobb, F A.
Follick, M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Cocks, F. S
Foot, M. M.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Collick, P.
Forman, J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Collins, V. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)




Jenkins, R. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Keenan, W.
Parker, J
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Kendall, W. D.
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Kenyon, C
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Kinley, J.
Pearson, A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Kirby, B. V
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Timmons, J.


Lang, G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Titterington, M. F.


Lavers, S.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Tolley, L.


Lee, Miss J.(Cannock)
Proctor, W. T.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Leslie, J. R.
Pryde, D. J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Levy, B. W.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Lipson, D. L.
Randall, H. E.
Viant, S. P.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Ranger, J.
Wadsworth, G.


Lyne, A. W.
Reeves, J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McAdam, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Warbey, W. N.


McEntee, V. La T.
Rhodes, H.
Watkins, T. E.


McGhee, H. G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Robens, A.
Weitzman, D.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvanshire)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wigg, George


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Royle, C
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. [...]


Marquand, Rt Hon. H. A.
Scollan, T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mayhew, C. P.
Sharp, Granville
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Medland, H. M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Mitchison., G. R.
Simmons, C. J.
Willis, E.


Monslow, W.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Solley, L. J.
Yates, V. F.


Moyle, A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Murray, J. D.
Sparks, J. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Stamford, W.



O'Brien, T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oliver, G. H.
Stross, Dr. B.
Mr. Collindridge and


Paget, R T.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Mr. Popplewell.

Clause 4.—(SUPERANNUATION, ETC., RIGHTS.)

6.0 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out "such an expectation as aforesaid," and to insert:
an expectation of accruer whether as of right or under customary practice of any particular benefits in favour of any such person or in favour of another person by reference to his employment.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I wish to support the Amendment. The subsection which we seek to amend is one of great complexity. It will be found that it is 394 words long without a single full stop. It has generally been my experience in this House that where we have a long and complex Clause without a full stop there must be some reason behind it, and generally the reason is that there is something to conceal. A 394-word subsection is a fig leaf of substantial size and may conceal things which would certainly cause offence if seen. What the subsection does is to water down and partially cancel Section 37 (2) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act which

guaranteed to those displaced under that Act that they would get their customary rights under what was known as "accruer arrangements." The word "accruer" caused great difficulty to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) but it was not a very complex business. What it meant was that if by the custom of a concern a man would over a period of years be entitled to certain rights, under that Act he would still be entitled to them. If we read the subsection we find that severely watered down.
It is impossible really to amend the subsection to make it right without cancelling it completely, and our Amendment to that effect will not be called. The Amendment which has just been moved is a much more moderate one. It seeks to make this immense mass of words slightly clearer, if that is possible. The words we propose to leave out are:
Such an expectation as aforesaid.
We believe that the right hon. Gentleman means what we mean when he puts those words in, and what we mean is:
An expectation of accruer whether as of right or under customary practice"—


and so on. Those words appear in the Clause but they appear about 20 lines further up than the words I am trying to leave out, and therefore it is very difficult for anyone to know whether or not the words "Such an expectation" refer to the words I want to put in. The Amendment, which can do nothing to make this Clause right, might at any rate do something to make it less obscure, and it is in that hope that we put it forward.

Mr. Raikes: I also wish to support the Amendment, which is a very narrow one, on one ground beyond all else, and that is that in the view of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House subsection (2) is a breach of faith with a considerable number of persons who were promised something under the original Act which they will not now get. The position was made fairly clear by the Government at an early stage in the Standing Committee, in the most unblushing fashion. Not least of those who were unblushing was the Solicitor-General with whom I propose to deal in a moment.
This is what has happened. Very late in the day, Section 37 (2, a) of the 1946 Act was considered by the Government to be unsatisfactory. That was long after the Act had become an Act. The Section created an obligation that regulations must be not less advantageous than the right or expectation in which they provided a benefit. The Government now take the view—two or three years afterwards—that the words "or expectation" were unsatisfactory, and therefore this new subsection to Clause 4 has been produced. Broadly speaking, the new subsection means that although certain persons may be better off than they would have been under the 1946 Act, nevertheless it is absolutely certain—that was made clear by the Solicitor-General—or as certain as makes no difference, that a number of persons will be worse off.
Our protest is a very simple one. We say that it is absolutely wrong that by retrospective legislation due to the error of the Government in the past in not having realised the implications of the 1946 Act, certain persons should have their benefits reduced or taken away under this subsection. We say that is a breach of faith, and we take the opportunity given to us by the Chair of speaking more broadly than the narrow Amendment would normally permit to

make this protest. We feel bound to divide the House as a protest against what we regard as a breach of faith by retrospective legislation and something totally unworthy of the best conduct and procedure of this House.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite announce their intention of dividing without even hearing the answer which I shall endeavour to give. No doubt that will be my fault, but the answer I seek to give is to both the arguments adduced in support of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) was concerned principally with the form of the Clause rather than its content. It is a long subsection but that is because in an attempt to relieve the reader of having to refer to Section 37 of the 1946 Act we have reproduced in the subsection a great deal of what we are trying to change from that Section. It is because we wish to spare the reader trouble that this subsection looks so long and a great deal more cumbersome than it will be found to be by reading it through. We take certain wording out of Section 37 of the 1946 Act, and we repeat it here and say that we are changing it in a certain respect. It is our intention—and it is our belief that we have achieved our intention—that the words "such an expectation as aforesaid" relate back to the previous description of an expectation which occurs a little higher in the subsection where the wording of Section 37 is set out.
With regard to the substance of it, it really is a long way from the mark to say that we are here retrospectively taking away anything that was promised; the contrary is the case. The reason for this subsection is that we were apprehensive that the wording which we had used in Section 37 did not altogether implement what we had intended in favour of the persons who were to be its objects. I can illustrate the anxiety which we had in mind by an example which, indeed, I gave upstairs when this Clause was being discussed in Committee. Supposing one has the case of a company which ordinarily gave pension rights after 30 years' service, and supposing there is a servant who has been in the employ of that company for 10 years when the provisions of this Bill come into effect, and his service with that


company comes to an end. As the original Section 37 was drawn, it appeared on closer inspection and when it was actually sought to put it into operation, that there was this possible reading that might be put upon it—we did not necessarily think would be put upon it but might be put upon it in such a case—that the individual who had done his 10 years' service might have it said against him, "There is nothing to show that you would have completed the necessary term of 30 years' service in order to get the customary pension rights which are given by the company you have served."
We thought that a person in those circumstances might well feel a grievance if, as might be the case, it could be said upon reading of Section 37 that his claim after 10 years' service was too speculative and fanciful and it really assumed that there was a likelihood which it could not be predicated was the case that he would have continued for the remaining 20 years. In order, therefore, to prevent it being said against a person of that sort, "Your claim to customary pension advantages is altogether too fanciful and is not sufficiently firmly based upon that probability," we said in the Clause which is now being considered by the House that we would substitute some tangible basis of measurement, and that tangible basis of measurement appears in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection (2). The basis of measurement is the period of employment and the actual emoluments that the person in the service of the company is receiving.
So we substitute for a state of uncertainty two concrete criteria of measurement by reference to which his expectation of receiving customary pension rights from that company can be measured. In other words, we give a person a right, or we ensure to him that he gets something which, upon the reading of the previous subsection it might be said—we do not say it would be said—upon one reading of the previous Section 37, it might be said he would not have got. Therefore the substance of the matter is that, far from taking away from anybody something which he ought to have, we are making sure, by providing a criterion by reference to which his claim can be measured, that he does indeed get his deserts under the terms of

the previous Section 37 in the spirit in which it was intended that he should receive them. Therefore I repudiate entirely the charge that there is any breach of faith; on the contrary, the reverse is the truth.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The example which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just given might have been regarded as persuasive but for his statements and the statements of his right hon. Friend in the course of the Committee stage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just given the House the impression that the net effect of the change of the Clause as it stands, is to give people whose claims might have been in doubt a certainty that they would be well treated. That is not, in fact, the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to the Committee. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said to the Committee was quite different, although it is quite true that he quoted the same instance. He said:
The new Clause may in some cases inure to the advantage of the person who claims an expectation,"—
He went on to say:
and in some cases it may the reverse."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th February, 1949; c. 374.]
In other words, in some cases the man will benefit but in some cases the man who had a reasonable expectation, relying on the pledge given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman during the passage of the Bill, will be disappointed.

Mr. Gaitskell: No.

Mr. Hudson: If the House was in any doubt about the view of the Government on this matter, I ask the House to listen to what the Minister said:
It is perfectly clear that all I was saying in reply to that question was that the Regulations had to be made and had to provide the same benefits or substituted benefits not less-advantageous than those previously enjoyed either as of right or under customary practice.
That is a pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave during the discussions on the Bill in 1946. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say:
In fact regulations were made, so if any pledge was given it was carried out,
Now listen to the next words which the right hon. Gentleman used:


but there was no pledge given to refrain in all circumstances from introducing an amending Bill to clarify the position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 10th Feb., 1949; c. 400.]

Mr. Gaitskell: Why not?

Mr. Hudson: In other words, the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman is this: "I give a pledge in the House in 1946, I bring in regulations which admittedly carry out that pledge, but I subsequently find that the pledge went too far and so I feel myself at perfect liberty to bring in new legislation amending the pledge." That, in fact, is what the right hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Gaitskell: No.

Mr. Hudson: I venture to say that if the interests of miners had been involved the right hon. Gentleman would not have been allowed by his party to get away with it. There are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House who are concerned on general grounds with pledges given by the Government about the changes that will be made and the regulations that will have to be introduced when certain Measures are passed. It has been a commonplace of Bills in this House, where amalgamations are concerned—still more when nationalisation measures are brought in—that men who are affected are to have their rights preserved.
As an illustration, in the course of the last few weeks the Iron and Steel Bill has been discussed upstairs, and the Minister of Supply has given the most categorical assurances, as the Minister of Fuel and Power did in 1946, that the interests of these men will be protected by regulations. Are we now to see a new practice by the Government of bringing in the regulations and then bringing in an amending Bill? We repeat that it is a piece of gross dishonesty on the part of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "scandalous" about one of my hon. and learned Friends. He has the responsibility of the Government, his action is both scandalous and dishonest, and it is as well that that should go out from this House.

Mr. J. Foster: The House should understand quite clearly that under the 1946 Act the Government pledged itself to give benefits not less advantageous

in two cases where a man had a certain right to a certain benefit and where he had an expectation of accruer of a certain benefit. Under this amending Bill only the first of these men—the man who has a right—is still entitled to "benefits not less advantageous." The second man —the man who has only "an expectation of accruer"—is deprived of the protection which was pledged by the right hon. Gentleman. The man who has an "expectation of accruer" no longer is entitled to "benefits not less advantageous." That promise was contained in the original Act, and hon. Members opposite should be ashamed of depriving a man of the "benefits not less advantageous" promised to him by the Government. That is what this amending Bill does. I challenge the Solicitor-General to deny it. He says that all he is doing is giving more to people who would otherwise get less, but under this Measure he is not pledged to give to a man who has "an expectation of accruer" "benefits not less advantageous." I challenge the Solicitor-General to say that I am wrong.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that under Section 37 (2) of the principal Act two classes of people were promised "benefits not less advantageous." One of those classes has now been deprived of that protection. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister say that they are merely amending to make the position clear. What they are doing is depriving people of something to which they are entitled.

Mr. Scollan: They can go to arbitration.

Mr. Foster: No, they cannot go to arbitration. If they were entitled to "benefits not less advantageous" they could say to an arbitrator, "In an Act of Parliament we have been promised 'benefits not less advantageous.' I am a man of 62 and entitled to a pension of £200 a year when I am 65." Now they cannot do that. If the regulations provide that they shall get so many eightieths, subject to Income Tax and so on, they cannot say that to an arbitrator, for he will tell them, "I am very sorry; you are not entitled to 'benefits not less advantageous.' You are entitled only to what the regulations say you can have." These people have been put in the same class as those covered by Section 37 (1),


about whom we shall hear when discussing the next Amendment.
Hon. Members opposite should look carefully into this question to see who is right. One can easily be wrong, but let us assume for the moment that I am right. I do not lay this down dogmatically, but put it forward as a challenge, for it is very difficult sometimes to make one's way through these Measures. Assuming that I am right, hon. Members opposite must agree that it is disgraceful to alter an Act of Parliament and to give people less; to say to people, whom they once protected by saying, "You will get 'benefits not less advantageous,'" "We

wipe that out. We are not going to pledge ourselves to give 'benefits not less advantageous.'" That is a disgraceful thing to do, if I am right. I feel confident that I am right as no answer is forthcoming from the Government Front Bench. That being so, a pledge has been disgracefully broken.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely, we are going to have an answer to that speech?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 68.

Division No. 91.]
AYES
[8.27 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Ganley, Mrs C. S
Medland, H. M.


Alien A. C. (Bosworth)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mitchison, G. R.


Alpass, J. H
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Monslow, W


Attewell, H C
Grierson, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Gunter, R. J
Murray, J. D.


Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J
Hate, Leslie
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Barstow, P G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
O'Brien, T.


Batting, J. R.
Hardman, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hardy, E. A.
Paget, R. T.


Benson, G.
Harrison, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Berry, H
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Bing, C. H. C
Haworth. J.
Pargiter, G. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Parker, J


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Parkin, B. T.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hewitson. Capt. M
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Holman., P.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Popplewell, E.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Horabin, T. L.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Porter, G (Leeds)


Burden, T. W.
Hughes, EmryS (S. Ayr)
Proctor, W. T.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)




Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pryde, D. J.


Cobb, F A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Cocks, F. S.
Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Collick, P.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ranger, J.


Collins, V. J.
Jeger, C (Winchester)
Reeves, J.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jenkins. R. H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cooper, G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Rhodes, H.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Crawley, A.
Keenan, W
Robens, A.


Daggar, G.
Kenyon, C
Roberts, Garenwy (Caernarvonshire)


Daines, P
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinley, J.
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kirby, B V
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Deer, G.
Lang, G.
Royle, C.


Diamond, J.
Lavers. S
Scollan, T.


Dobbie, W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dodds, N. N.
Leslie, J. R.
Sharp, Granville


Driberg, T. E. N.
Levy, B. W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lipson, D. L.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Lyne, A. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Edelman, M.
McAdam, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McEntee, V. La T.
Skinnard, F. W


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Solley, L. J.


Ewart, R.
McLeavy, F.
Soskice, Fit Hon. Sir Frank


Farthing, W. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sparks, J. A.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stamford, W


Follick, M.
Malialieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, T.


Foot, M. M.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.
Stross, Dr. B.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T. N.
Mashers, Rt. Hon. George
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)




Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wadsworth, G.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wallace, H W (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S)


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Willis, E.


Thurtle, Ernest
Weitzman, D.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Timmons, J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt Hon. A


Titterington, M. F
Wheatley, Rt. H'n. John (Edino'gh, E)
Yates, V. F.


Tolley, L.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W
Zilliacus, K


Turner-Samuels, M.
Wigg, George



Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B
TELLERS Wit THE AYES:


Viant, S. P.
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Hannan




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
George, Maj. Rt G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gridley, Sir A
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Hogg, Hon Q
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hudson, RI Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Sanderson, Sir F.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Jennings, R.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Keeling, E. H.
Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Spearman, A C M


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H
Stuart, Rt. Hon J (Moray)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Touche, G. C.


Conant, Maj R. J, E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Turton, R. H.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C.
McCarquodala, Rt. Hon. M. S
Walker-Smith, D


Cuthbert, W N.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. Dorset, E.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Donner, P. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dower, Col. A. V. G (Penrith)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)



Eccles, D. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Mr. Studholme and


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M
Nicholson, G.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(3) Any person who is aggrieved by a determination as to whether any or what benefits shall be provided in his favour or in favour of another person by reference to his employment under any regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) of the said Section thirty-seven may require the matter to be referred to the arbitration of a referee or board of referees appointed for the purpose by the Minister of Labour and National Service after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Board shall give effect to the determination of the referee or board of referees.

Mr. J. Foster: This Amendment, which I support, is connected with the subject of the previous discussion. Its object is to allow certain classes of people to go to arbitration, and the way in which this matter arises is as follows. Under Section 37 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, persons covered by subsection (2), to which we have just alluded, who had a right or expectation of accruer of particular benefits, also had the right to benefits not less advantageous. Under the 1946 Act, the persons who have been made redundant and who have no right

or expectation of accruer, but had an expectation, generally, of being compensated, had the right of going to arbitration. This Amendment is intended to undo what I said was a particularly dirty trick on the part of the Government.
I should say here that I have an interest in this matter. I have a client who is affected by it, so I have a professional interest in putting this forward. The particularly dirty trick by the Government was that, under the original regulations of the 1946 Act, the persons whom I have described had a right to go to arbitration, but, in the particular case which I have in mind, the persons concerned were pressed not to allow the matter to go to arbitration. What happened? When, apparently, the Government became aware that these persons could go to an impartial arbitrator and say, "We have not been properly treated; we are not going to get the compensation from the Coal Board which the Minister promised us during the Debate on the Coal Bill," regulations were passed in November, 1948, depriving these persons of such compensation. In effect the Government said, "No longer can these persons go


to arbitration and complain that they are not going to get proper compensation with regard to the money they were earning and the length of time they were employed by the colliery undertakings. Henceforward they can only go to arbitration if they feel that they are aggrieved by the scheme issued by the Coal Board." The Coal Board issued a scheme which gave them only a fraction of the compensation to which they were entitled.
Compensation, in ordinary language, means what it says; it means giving a man the equivalent of what he had before. If a man is given only a fraction of what he had before, that is not proper compensation; that is a form of robbery, confiscation, and injustice, whichever way one looks at it. By their regulations of 1948, the Government have deprived the man who is entitled to compensation from going to arbitration, and having restricted him to the complaint that he has not been properly treated under the scheme, if his complaint is that the scheme treats him badly. His only redress is when some arithmetical computation under the scheme is not satisfactory, and when, say, he ought to get £220 a year whereas he is only getting £210. If that is the case, he can say that the scheme provides that he shall get £220 a year, but that, actually, he is only getting £210.
If, on the other hand, his complaint is that he feels he ought to get £250, but that the scheme only provides for £220, he cannot go to arbitration on that matter. As I say, before the November, 1948, regulations were made he had the right to go to arbitration. One would have thought that, in fairness, both classes should have had benefits not less advantageous. I accept the apparent view of the Government, but that is not in the Act. Under the original Act some classes of persons were entitled to benefits not so advantageous, but this injustice has been made worse because people who feel that they have been unfairly treated have been deprived of the right of appeal. If that is not a dirty trick, what is?

Mr. Robens: In this matter of the provisions for rights, and so on, the main Act says that
regulations shall be made for all or any of the following benefits
and they fall into certain categories as

the hon. Member has indicated. We have got, of course, those who are continuing to be employed by the National Coal Board and who go into the Board's scheme. There is no real need for arbitration in those circumstances because the fund itself provides for reference to a board of management which is usually composed of members of the fund and of the management. There is also the group of persons who have service under the old undertakings and who have certain rights and expectations. I do not think that we have really any objection to arbitration in relation to those people. We will look at that point, and if we can do something in any way for those people we will do it.

Mr. Scollan: I assume that this matter has been brought forward on the basis that it was equally fair to these people to put down the amount of compensation that they could claim under the Bill in the same way as it is put down for the miner himself. Let me take the case of a miner, probably 62 or 63 years of age, whose pit is closed under the new reorganisation plan. All his family and his ties are in that particular neighbourhood, and he cannot very well begin a new life in another place. The Bill definitely states what should be paid to him in compensation. He will get a definite sum for 26 weeks. These other people to which reference has been made are in that category, but with a very much higher rate of compensation. I cannot understand how anybody can suggest that a person should plead, "Now that the industry has been reorganised, I shall lose my job, and I assess the compensation which I ought to be paid at £500," or some other sum. Obviously, if we are to clutter up all the arbitration courts with fanciful figures which many people can claim by way of com-compensation, we shall be apt to get far greater compensation paid than is justified, and we shall be creating a privileged class in dealing with the whole of the reorganisation of the mines. That is what I object to.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his undertaking that he will have this point dealt with in another place. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
During the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill we spent most of our time discussing the structure of the National Coal Board. That was as a result of agreement between the two sides of the House, and I make no complaint whatever about it. I think it was an interesting and useful Debate. But, of course, the fact is that the Bill itself has really very little to do with the structure of the National Coal Board. As hon. Members no doubt realise, it makes a number of small amendments to the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, and one important amendment to the Act of 1911.
I think I can say that there is really no dispute as to the last point. Part II of this Bill, which deals with the amendment to the 1911 Act, is in substance a matter on which we are all agreed —the desirability of giving the Minister power to make regulations to amend or vary or alter Part I of the 1911 Act. The only point in dispute this afternoon was as to whether the regulations should be subject to annulment here or not. I will not go over that ground again.
Perhaps I may say a few words on one or two of the other Clauses, and then say a little more on Clause 1 on which I think all are agreed we should concentrate.
First, as regards Clauses 3 and 4, I do not myself consider that they are enormously important. They have been dealt with very thoroughly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and there is not much that I need say. The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) launched a severe attack against us on this matter of superannuation, but seriously I do not think anybody would say that it was unreasonable to lay down that the decision in this matter of how an expectation of accruer should be valued should depend upon the period for which a man was employed and the salary he got while he was employed. That is all that we are doing in that Clause. As to Clause 3, regarding contracts, I think my right hon. and learned Friend has covered the ground adequately.
I should like to say a word or two more about Clause 2, although, if I may say so, the admirable speech of my hon.

Friend the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with most of the points made by hon. Members opposite up to the time that he spoke. I want to emphasise this: the reason for the Clause is simply that a mistake was made in the drafting of Section 63 of the original Act. It was intended in that Section to prevent the Coal Board from getting involved in taking over assets which belonged to colliery companies in foreign countries. We did not want to have any question that they were to be able to exercise options in respect of properties belonging to colliery companies abroad, but the way the Clause was actually drafted meant that they were debarred from undertaking activities abroad generally and the result has been that they have not been able, for example, themselves to conduct negotiations abroad. They can do so here, but they cannot do so in Paris or in any other foreign country, at least with any certainty that they will not be challenged in the courts.
At the moment they cannot themselves ship coal, which means that all sales must be f.o.b. Normally, that may be perfectly satisfactory, but obviously there may be cases where they should have the right to sell c.i.f. Some customers may prefer that that transaction should be arranged direct with them instead of through an exporter who takes the risk with the shipping. Finally, they have no power to set up any kind of sales agency here or in any other country. The primary purpose of the Clause was to put that matter right. When we looked at it, however, we came to the conclusion that there was really no reason why we should not, in effect, allow them to undertake activities abroad, always providing there was no question of their taking over assets held abroad. That is exactly how we have amended the original Act; that is the result produced by this Clause.
I would only add one or two remarks in reply to comments by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). All we ask is that the Coal Board should be allowed themselves to compete as traders in the world market, and I cannot see why hon. Members opposite are so terrified of the competition of the National Coal Board. If the Board are as inefficient as some hon. Members like to make out, there need not be any anxiety about it whatever. Let me say that the National Coal Board themselves have the


greatest possible interest in obtaining the largest volume of exports. Some figures about present prices have been given by the hon. Member for Chippenham. I do not dispute them. I have repeatedly said that at the moment we are getting exceptionally favourable terms. In those circumstances, it is quite certain that the Board will not take any action which, in their opinion, is likely to reduce the amount of coal exported from this country but they are entitled to that freedom which is not denied to private enterprise in this sphere and to opportunitites of trading. This may inspire a little healthy competition, but I am quite certain that the result will be thoroughly beneficial to the British export trade.
Finally, I turn to Clause 1. Clause 1, in fact, does only two things. It enables the Minister to appoint a limited number of part-time members by increasing the total numbers permitted on the Board—the maximum number permitted in the Act—from 9, including the chairman, to 12, including the chairman, and at the same time provides that of that total at least three must be part-time members. The second change is to enable the Minister to appoint a second vice-chairman. Of course, both these changes were recommended by the Burrows Commitee, although I think my hon. Friend said on Second Reading that at any rate the first change was one which we had had in mind for some considerable time. I should not have thought it necessary for me to argue, at any rate with hon. Members opposite, about the desirability of having some part-time members on the National Coal Board. I freely admit that they themselves expressed the view during the passage of the original Act in 1946 that this was probably desirable. I have come to the conclusion that in this case, at any rate, it is a desirable thing.
I do not say that in every case we should have part-time members. One thing I have learned from my experience in this field is not to be dogmatic about what sort of Board we should have. That really is, I think, fully borne in upon one. It depends upon what people are available; it depends on what stage we have reached in the development of the undertaking. It is a great mistake to tie ourselves down too rigidly in advance. I do urge that most strongly

upon hon. Members opposite, because they on occasion have suggested that we should reduce the number of full-time members still further, and I have resisted that. I have resisted it not because I thought it might not be desirable to have a smaller number of full-time members, but because I do not think any Minister of Fuel and Power should be tied down for ever to such a low maximum.
I am prepared to tell the House now that I do not disagree, for instance, with the fact that we shall probably maintain the number of full-time members at not more than the present eight full-time members, though it may be—I have not decided this—that if we wish to appoint an additional vice-chairman from outside the present membership of the Board I may have to go back on that. On the whole, however, I think it was an advantage to appoint—as I did —one part-time member not long ago, and it may be that we can proceed further in that direction. But do not let us tie ourselves down rigidly in the statute any further.
There has been, I think, an agreement with Mr. Speaker that we should be able to refer in this Debate to the problem of decentralisation. There was an Amendment down about that matter, but it was not called. In Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end, insert:
Provided that in connection with the alteration of the composition of the Board authorised by this section and with a view to the more effective carrying on of the undertaking of the Board the Board shall adopt measures to secure the largest degree of executive decentralisation consistent with the retention by them of control of general policy.
It was understood that we should be able to say a word about the subject on Third Reading. For my part, I welcome the opportunity, because the Conservative Party, in this matter, at any rate, has been slightly more specific regarding its election policy than in many other spheres. Several hon. Gentlemen on the other side have come out into the open with a challenge as to what they are going to do about the nationalised industries. They say they will not denationalise but decentralise them. It will be useful, therefore, to have a discussion on that subject. I have always wanted to know exactly what they would do in this matter, and I am going to put to right hon. Gentlemen opposite a series of ques-


tions which. I hope, they will be able to answer, because, after all, the country as well as the House is entitled to know exactly what their policy is.
In the first place, are we to understand that it is the intention of the Opposition further to alter the original Statute so as to bring about this decentralisation? Do they think it desirable, for instance, not to place on the Statute Book some vague phrase like that in the Amendment which was not called, but to set up statutory bodies below the national level, as we have set up in the case of the gas and electricity industries? I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) has ideas of that kind. He was bold enough to come out into print on them. On the other hand, I gather from his remarks in Committee that the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) does not hold that view. They are both back benchers and are entitled to their views, but what we want to know is what the Front Bench say about this.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us in turn if the General Election is to be this year?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. If he really wants to know the date of the Election before deciding his policy, that is too much. However, let us continue. Assuming that they are not going to alter the statute —I think they would be very well advised not to—how exactly are they to bring about this famous decentralisation? Is it to be as the result of general directions issued by the Minister after consultation with the National Coal Board? Suppose by chance the National Coal Board, on being consulted about these general directions on decentralisation, happened to take the view that they were not necessary, that they were even undesirable. What then would the Opposition say? It might be rather awkward, might it not?
Suppose, on the other hand, they are not going to use general directions at all. They might not be able to do so. It is doubtful whether they would cover such a change which, I presume, is intended. How else is it to be achieved? The Minister, assuming that he is a Conservative, has to go along to the National Coal Board and say, "I wish you to decentralise." That really will not be

enough. He will have to be a great deal more precise. Or is it already decided that when the Opposition come into power, if they come into power, they are going to sack all the existing members of the National Coal Board, so that they have a completely free hand? I cannot believe that that will be so, because the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) said, during the Second Reading Debate, that he did not agree with Sir Charles Reid that anybody on the National Coal Board should be sacked. So we do not know where we stand on this matter. We are looking forward on this side of the House, with the greatest interest, to the replies to be given by right hon. Gentlemen to these questions.
While they are making up their minds, perhaps I may say a few words myself on this subject of decentralisation. [Laughter.] I can well understand the relief with which hon. Gentlemen opposite received the end of those particular remarks and pertinent questions. Of course, everybody agrees that decentralisation has great advantages. It has the great advantage that we get speedier decisions. It has an even greater advantage, in my view, in that we get a greater sense of responsibility at the lower levels, which is extremely important. We get also, undoubtedly, a stronger feeling of participation in the organisation. All that is perfectly true; but we must also appreciate that decentralisation does have certain dangers. We are bound to get more frequent mistakes. If we are going in for a policy of extreme decentralisation, the House must face up to it that more mistakes are likely to be made.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: We cannot have more than we have now.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am being more serious than the right hon. Gentleman. If we have control at the centre, it is much easier to prevent mistakes. That is what is argued all the time against the running of an industry by a Government Department, because a Government Department is always afraid of making mistakes upon which the Minister will be challenged in the House. That is perfectly true, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. We do, in that way, avoid a great many mistakes. It has its disadvantages, but we think that on balance


it is better not to put nationalised industries directly under Government Departments, but to set up these public corporations.
Secondly, there will be some divergence between practices in different districts, and that will be held against the National Coal Board. They will be asked, "How is it that in a particular division or area such and such a mansion has been bought at an extravagant cost?" They will say, "I am sorry but that is the result of leaving this to the divisional chairman, or the divisional board, or even to the area general manager."

Mr. McCorquodale: Does the Minister think that there will be any more mansions left?

Mr. Gaitskell: We have already helped the market for large houses, and I think that some hon. Gentlemen opposite may welcome this assistance.
There are other difficulties, and we must not forget them. It would be completely impossible—I can assure the House of this because it comes directly under me under the Defence Regulations—to decentralise the marketing of coal at the moment. We have to plan our coal distribution with such a narrow margin to get the maximum amount of exports that if we were to give up close control over marketing that would be completely impossible. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, because he was as responsible as anybody for developing that system during the war.
Again, we cannot decentralise the plans for capital development. There may be a particular area where they want to go in for a particular type of development, where they want to have new sinkings or some underground development, and so they think to themselves, "This is splendid." But they cannot be left to do that. There must be a proper national plan for the areas in which the coal is to be developed in the most efficient manner. That is something which must be decided at the centre. At times it may seem extremely irksome and irritating to those in the areas and at the collieries that the plans they want to make for their particular pit and area have to be approved, first of all at the divisional and then at

the national level. But it is obviously quite wrong to give up this attempt at a national plan. If we allowed every area and every pit to proceed as it wanted, we should never achieve the best results or the most efficient industry.
One could go on. There are of course other matters, such as wages and conditions. Not only the Coal Board are concerned with that; the Mineworkers' Union, and the managers' and other associations are also concerned. On many occasions they must have these matters settled at the national level; they themselves wish to have them settled at the national level. Nor must we overlook the fact that the coal industry, contrasted for example with electricity, is an industry in which wages are two-thirds of the total costs, so that anything to do with wages and conditions is bound to be an enormously important aspect. Just as in electricity the dominating feature is bound to be the capital development plan, so in coal it is bound to be wages and conditions. Well, there it is. It is really a matter of balance between these two things—the advantages of decentralisation, which are certainly very real, and, on the other side, the dangers of decentralisation. I do not myself think that there is any very serious disagreement.
On the whole, we want to move in the direction of decentralisation; the National Coal Board have said repeatedly that that is what they are intending to do, and what they are doing; and I can assure the House from my own personal knowledge that it is the case. To start with, a great many policy decisions had to be made, and inevitably in a new organisation policy decisions had to be made at the centre; but more and more, as policy decisions are made, their implementation can be and is being left to the divisions and areas themselves. There were problems of organisation to start with, most of which have, I think, been solved—subject to any changes which the Opposition might suggest we should make. To begin with, these matters were not altogether clear; it was not exactly clear, for example, what a particular man's role was to be, and direction from the top was necessary. But all this is gradually changing, and we can be sure that the industry is moving more and more towards a decentralised structure, always subject to the major point that I


mentioned earlier, which I think must be settled by the National Coal Board themselves.
This Bill has been treated as controversial. For my part I rather regret that. I think it is perhaps natural for the Opposition to try to squeeze every ounce of disagreement they can out of it, and on this occasion they have certainly taken the view that it was the duty of the Opposition to oppose. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the purpose of the various Clauses which for my part I regret, because, when all is said and done, the Opposition have said that they are not going to denationalise the coal industry. I do not think that any of their leaders, at any rate, is likely to go back on that statement. If that is so, it really is in their interests, as it is of course in the interests of the country as a whole, that this nationalised industry should be a great success; and I should like to hear from them tonight an honestly expressed view, because at times the criticisms they have made of the National Coal Board during the passage of this Bill have made some of us question their sincerity. I should like to hear them say to the House, to the country, and to the Coal Board, "We wish you well. We want you to be successful. We have opposed various things in the Bill, but the Government at any rate recognise that it is for your benefit and for the benefit of the country as a whole." Let them, therefore, stop their rather hostile attitude; let them join with us in welcoming the Bill and saying to the National Coal Board: "God speed. The country needs the coal, and we wish you the best of luck."

9.5 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: The right hon. Gentleman was extremely persuasive in his last few sentences, but I should have been the more easily persuaded if he had not said just before that some of us in opposing this Bill did things that made him doubt our sincerity. I can certainly say that so far as I am concerned I do not recollect, either on the original Measure or on this Bill, putting forward anything other than what I thought to be a defect which ought to be remedied. The right hon. Gentleman regretted that this Bill had become rather controversial, but surely there are one or two things in it which the right hon. Gentleman could not expect to be other than controversial. For

instance, there is the way some of the people who have been displaced have been treated. Surely that is a matter of some controversy, or ought to be. Then there is the vast extension of the activities of the Coal Board. I should have thought that that was a matter about which we might have had some discussion. The fact that the Minister says he has no intention to put into effect the powers given to him under this Bill does not alter the fact that it enables the Coal Board to extend their activities very greatly. There are other matters, such as contracts, which must surely be discussed, and if that is being controversial then I suppose we must have been controversial.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when he introduced this Bill, referred to it as being a simple little Bill. It probably is the simplest Bill we have had if that relates to its size, but I should not like to say it is not a controversial one. Among other things, Clause 4 is almost incomprehensible. Yet that Clause deals with some very important aspects of the coal industry. The Bill amends two Acts, the 1911 Act and the 1946 Act. The principal alteration brought about by the 1946 Act was the change of ownership. But as the Parliamentary Secretary said at the time, nothing was laid down as to the structure of the National Coal Board. All it did was to say that from a certain date, the National Coal Board would take over and run the coal industry. Nothing was said about how they were to run the industry. That was left entirely to the Board. The Minister said tonight that they must be careful not to be too rigid in any plans that were made, but we can be certain that there was no rigidity about the first Measure because there was no plan at all. During the passage of the 1946 Act, we constantly asked the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor what instructions were to be given to the National Coal Board and we got no answer at all. The fact is that this wretched Board was handed this enormous baby on a plate and told to get on with it. It is not surprising, therefore, that within two years of the passing of that Act we have to have another Bill to try and put one or two things right which should have been put right before.
During the Committee stage of the principal Measure, many Members supporting the Government were a little impatient with the Opposition for raising


questions which we thought of importance. They seemed to think that once the principle of nationalisation had been agreed, there was nothing more to be said. The answer to that is the Bill we are now discussing. This Bill has been brought forward in order to try to remedy some of the defects which the Minister admits were to be found in the principal Act. The two Acts have to be amended, the 1946 Act because it is not working satisfactorily, and the 1911 Act because the technical improvements in mining operations have been so great, not since 1947, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary said during the Committee stage, during the last 37 years. In other words, let the House remember that the mining industry has been advancing during this long period, and not only during the last two or three years as Members opposite like to think.
The first thing I want to deal with is Clause 1, which I understand we shall be allowed to discuss in this Debate. It deals with the alteration of the composition of the National Coal Board. I do not think that anyone is satisfied with the results so far achieved. The Parliamentary Secretary got a little excited during part of our Debates today, and said that the Coal Board had done a better job in two years than was ever done before. It all depends on what is meant by "a job." Does he mean the production of coal, because it would be very difficult to persuade the House that the Board have done a better job in coal production than was ever done before? Lots of hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House have to say that they are satisfied, but I should like to know their private thoughts on the matter. I should be very surprised if they were satisfied with the operations of the Board.
The right hon. Gentleman himself is not satisfied. In answer to a question which I put to him some time ago he said he was satisfied, but in a speech in this House he said he was most disappointed with last year's results. How can the Parliamentary Secretary be satisfied when he said in the course of a speech last summer that if we failed to reach our target this year, the damage to our export trade would be serious? The chairman of the Coal Board said that if we failed to reach the target we would have to

answer to the country and to our conscience. Was the target reached last year or the year before? The target both last year and the year before was the bare minimum for our requirements, and yet in both these years the target was not reached.
It is quite obvious that neither the Government nor the Coal Board are satisfied, because we had the Burrows Report. It is true that not one of us was given the evidence on which the Committee's conclusions were arrived at. We do not know on what evidence it was decided to increase the size of the Board. In other words, if eight people were not doing well, 11 people might do better. What evidence had the Committee before them by which they could conclude that it was the smallness of the Coal Board that was responsible for the unsatisfactory working? Certainly people in the coalfield do not think that the Coal Board is too small. There was a meeting of 5,000 miners in the Rhondda recently. They did not pass a resolution that the Coal Board was too small. On the contrary they said there were too many officials. They wanted an investigation because there was certainly a duplication of jobs.
In the Yorkshire coalfield, the biggest in Britain, there was a meeting the other day and the men demanded an inquiry into the administration of the Coal Board. Does that appear as if they were satisfied? The fact of the matter is, there is ample evidence both inside and outside the industry that there is dissatisfaction with the way the Board is working. I come back to the right hon. Gentleman's observation as to centralisation. He asked us what we would do. Speaking entirely for myself, I will tell him what I would do. He asked us whether we wanted to deal with the coal industry as we dealt with gas and electricity?

Mr. Gaitskell: What I said was I should like to know whether the Opposition wanted us to make a statutory alteration to provide for some subordinate bodies to be set up.

Major Lloyd George: I will come in a minute or two to the subject of how that should be done. There is one thing to be said in favour of gas—most of the work devolves upon the regions and the central body is a very small one.


Again, with regard to electricity, I personally was in favour of almost complete autonomy for the regions. Let the Board run the regions as regions, with the Minister, of course, having a general direction.
In regard to difficulties as between coalfield and coalfield the Minister would be in the same difficulties in electricity. Suppose he wanted to develop North Wales, or possibly the Highlands of Scotland. It might be for the particular board an uneconomic proposition. Some of the vast rural areas would be uneconomic. Although I am a Welshman I should hardly have thought that the whole area of Wales would be a good gas region. I do not know how one could run gas from North to South Wales. There was autonomy in electricity, and certainly in gas. The Government could help when it was a question of developing an uneconomic area; when, say, a sparsely populated area like North Wales had to be developed.
In regard to coal I would have as much decentralisation as possible. I would go back to the idea that the Minister should have the power of general direction to see that the coal resources of the country were properly developed in the national interest. The Minister would have to come in, if, for example, the Lanarkshire coalfield was dying and if the future development in Scotland was in the Fife area. It is obvious that the Board could not deal with the housing problem, for example, in switching miners over from one part of the country to another. That is an instance where the overriding power of the Minister would come in. The right hon. Gentleman asked us what we would do with the Coal Board if they refused to do what we wanted. Does not the Minister come into it at all? Are we not the representatives of the proprietors of this industry? Is not the right hon. Gentleman responsible to us?

Mr. Gaitskell: What I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I am still waiting for an answer, is: What form would the decentralisation take that the party opposite are always advocating? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us precisely?

Major Lloyd George: I am not speaking for the "party opposite." I am speaking for myself.

Mr. Gaitskell: You cannot get away with that one.

Major Lloyd George: The last time I addressed a Parliament from this Box the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman were sitting around me. I never belonged to the right hon. Gentleman's party. My purpose is to advocate decentralisation. What I mean by that is that the planning of the industry and the development of the coal must rest primarily with the Minister. He is the representative of the present proprietors of the coal. Surely the proprietors of the coal industry are entitled to see how it works. We are the representatives here of the people of this country and we are entitled to see that the coal industry is worked in the national interest. The Minister has appointed the National Coal Board, and he can issue directions through them. The policy of how the development of coal shall take place must be decided from the centre, but the operations of cutting coal should be decentralised much more than they are today.
The right hon. Gentleman smiles. Why are all these miners passing resolutions up and down Britain? They are the people who get the coal. Why should they meet for the purpose of condemning their own Government unless they feel that they are being frustrated in their operation of getting coal? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that that is not the prevalent opinion; it is. When I say that the operation of coal-getting should be decentralised I mean something which is not happening today. If it were happening, far more progress would have been achieved than there has been in reorganisation. It is two years since the vesting date, and it is well known by many mining engineers that a great deal could have been done in two years. Yet we are struggling this year, and we were struggling last year, to attain a target which Ministers have stated is a bare minimum for the country, and in neither year have we achieved it. It is no use the Minister asking us what we should do. He should look and see how much decentralisation there is in the actual operation of getting coal and he would then not be surprised that people generally in the coal fields are not satisfied with what is going on. There is ample evidence that the organisation is not working, and to a large


extent that is due to too much centralisation in the actual coal-getting operations alone.
As to the increased activities of the Coal Board, I do not understand why provision should have been put into a Bill, at this time when nobody is satisfied with the running of the Coal Board, to extend its powers to every part of the world, so far as I can make it out, and to every sort of activity. There was a meeting at St. Andrew's some time ago at which the deputy chairman of the Coal Board was present. A discussion took place about the nationalisation of distribution and the deputy chairman of the Coal Board said, "Our hands are full enough as it is; we cannot take over the whole of the distributive system." If their hands are full enough as it is—there is no question that they are—why should the Minister produce a Bill greatly and unnecessarily adding to their activities. Their job is to bring the production of coal in this country to a proper level and not to worry about what goes on outside. The Minister asked why the Opposition were so worried about the possibility of the National Coal Board entering into the export market? He said that if, as the Opposition said, the Coal Board was so inefficient, why should the Opposition worry. The reason why the Opposition worry is that that inefficiency is paid for by the taxpayer and inefficiency in private industry is not. That makes a very great difference.
I want to say a word about the 1911 Act. The Minister makes his regulations today, as other Ministers have done, under the 1911 Act. I am not complaining about that because some of them are essential at present. However, many think that there should be a new mines safety Act. I have said this before and I do not apologise for referring to it again. The Minister recognises the necessity for such an Act—he has said so—but he cannot give a date when it will be brought forward. Why cannot he give a date? Has he discussed this possibility? It is high time because it was regarded as one of the first tasks to be done after the war finished. The reason is this. There was an Act of 1887.

Mr. David Griffiths: We were talking about it in 1918, not only in 1945.

Major Lloyd George: A Commission was appointed in 1906. My father was in that Government. After a prolonged investigation, that Commission produced its Report, and in 1911 the Act was produced. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made one or two observations today asking why hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House did not do something or other with regard to regulations and safety generally. I would only say that the 1911 Act was produced by a Liberal Government, it was introduced by the present Leader of the Opposition, and the Debate on the Second Reading took only two hours, there being really no opposition to it. I believe that everybody connected with the mining industry regards it as a very great Act.
However, that is 38 years ago and another Commission was appointed in 1936 by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) which reported in 1938. The war came and it was impossible to put that into legislative form in wartime, but it was regarded in the Ministry in my time as one of the first priorities when the war finished. Indeed, I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that I had permission to begin the drafting, and I would like to know from him why he is unable to give a date now as to when we may expect the Bill.
After all, we have had a Factories Bill which took a long time to go through Committee. Industry is not nearly as dangerous as mining, but there was a Bill covering all the regulations for safety in factories, contributed to by Members on all sides of the House, and a valuable Bill emerged. The trouble is that some hon. Gentlemen opposite feel that nobody but experts should have anything to do with the drafting of regulations or anything to do with safety. I hope that will not be the prevalent view of this House because others have contributions to make which are just as important. One hon. Gentleman said that the thing to do was to rely upon the practical men in the pit. I would not say that was always the best method of getting safety regulations. I have known cases where I had to go against the advice of practical men in the pits, and I was right, for they were prepared to take risks which in my judgment they should not be allowed to take. I am not now speak-


ing of theoretical things, I am talking of an actual case with which I had to deal.
If only experts are to be allowed to deal with legislation in this House, we cease to be a House of Commons and become, in effect, a delegate conference. We are representatives of the British people, and while it is true that we welcome on committees those who talk with expert knowledge, I should hate to see a committee upstairs composed of nothing but men of expert knowledge on the subject under discussion. We all have contributions to make and that is why, because we cannot attack a regulation on the Floor of the House, we can, if a Bill is introduced, make a contribution to what can be called a charter for the safety of miners in this country as great as the Act of 1911 which is 38 years old, and surely we are agreed that it is time we had another, in view of the tremendous advances since those days?
I did not mean to keep the House so long but I will say this in conclusion. This Bill can be described as a monument to hasty and ill-prepared legislation, and because in one of its main Clauses it tries to deal with what is admittedly an unsatisfactory state of affairs—the composition and functions of the Coal Board—and because in trying to deal with that, it obviously ignores the real reason for the unsatisfactory position today, I hope very much that the House will not give this Bill the Third Reading.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Timmons: I welcome this Bill as far as it goes, and I regret very much that the Minister in preparing it did not go much further. It is only now, after we have had time to see the implications of the principal Act, that we have now discovered many weaknesses in it, and I myself only found this to be the case a few weeks ago.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) mentioned the Lanarkshire coalfield, on which I shall have something to say later. At this stage, I would point out that there are 40 pits scheduled for closure in the next two years. After vesting date, the respective companies had to submit a statement of their interests on behalf of all the collieries. I should like to find out the contents of that statement of interests in respect of a number

of concerns, but I find that, under Clause 56 of the principal Act, we cannot obtain that information. That is a serious state of affairs.
I want to say a further word or two about Lanarkshire. Much has been said about compensation for loss of office, and it is my view that there has been far too much public money frittered away on compensation. In the Lanarkshire coalfield some 5,000 miners are to be put out of work in the next two years, and those 5,000 miners with their families will represent a fairly large population—between 10,000 and 15,000 people—whom it is intended to remove. Representations have been made to the Minister for a discussion of the matter, and I want to warn him now that that transfer is not going to take place as easily as the regional board think. I want to advise my right hon. Friend on that point, because I know Lanarkshire and the Lanarkshire miners.
On the question of compensation, let us look at what they will get. Those men, who have spent their lives in the industry and are the backbone of the industry, are between 35 and 55, and they have their families in Lanarkshire who understood that they would remain there. It is not going to be easy to uproot such people and transfer them to Fife, the Lothians, Ayrshire or any other coalfield. The handsome compensation which these displaced miners will get is £2 3s. 8d. per week for six months only. At the end of the six months, the compensation stops and they draw unemployment benefit. But there is a more serious factor than that. There are vast reserves of coal in Lanark. I have been in touch with the regional board and the consultative council. Decisions were taken to close these pits without any consultation whatever with the people who know the local circumstances. Moreover, it appears to me from the various conversations and discussions which I have had that, rightly or wrongly, the Coal Board had made up their minds to close these pits.
Today, we have a problem in the mining industry with regard to recruiting and securing additional manpower but here we are going to drive out of the industry some of the finest men who were ever in it. We cannot uproot these families and get them to go to other


coalfields. That just cannot be done, and, when I hear Members talking about compensation to people for loss of office, I would remind them that £1 13s. 8d. and £2 3s. 6d. are the amounts of the miserable compensation offered to these men. I only wish that the Minister would give more consideration to getting down properly to the principal Act and the introduction of further Amendments. I was shocked at the weekend—

Mr. Speaker: This question of individual compensation hardly comes into the Bill, which I think deals only with contracts.

Mr. Timmons: I am trying to indicate that I support the Bill as far as it goes, but I appeal to the Minister at some future time to extend—

Mr. Speaker: We are now on the Third Reading of the Bill, on which we are confined to what is in the Bill, not to what one would like to see in it.

Mr. Timmons: There is just one other fact I wish to mention with regard to safety regulations in the mines. I would impress upon my right hon. Friend that things are changing very rapidly in the industry, and I appeal to him to lose no time, after consultation with all the people who have been working with him and helping him, in coming to this House with a new Bill which, together with all the previous Acts, will ensure safety for the miners.

9.38 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster: Towards the end of his speech, the Minister regretted that we on this side had introduced some controversy into the discussion on what had been described as "this simple little Bill." But the fact was that this little Bill afforded us an opportunity of reintroducing into our discussions certain viewpoints which we tried to express when the 1946 Bill was being discussed. On that occasion we failed to get the then Minister to accept our point of view about the general organisation and administration of this industry. As I say, we felt that this Bill afforded us another opportunity of putting our point of view and of attempting to get the Government to make the alterations which we think necessary.
The Minister taunted us by asking whether we were sincere in our desire to

see the National Coal Board successful and whether we wanted to see this industry get on to its feet. In reply, I think it is fair to say that the Opposition have tried conscientiously during the last three years to put forward a number of proposals designed to improve the present situation and to make such alterations as will bring about some improvement. The discouraging thing is that, so far, we have been quite incapable of moving the Government in this matter, and we were unable during the Committee stage of the Bill to get a single Amendment accepted. I should say that that was a somewhat unusual experience. This cannot be described as an unimportant little Bill, and I cannot remember when a Bill of this size and importance has ever passed through the Committee stage without an Amendment of any sort being accepted by the Government.
The Minister said that this occasion afforded him the opportunity of going slightly wider than the terms of the Bill and of discussing the organisation of the Coal Board, in particular with reference to the matter of decentralisation. He posed a number of questions to which he said he would like to have a reply. I should like to attempt to give him a reply, and if I do so as a back bencher it is with the intention of trying to get my own Front Bench to agree with what I have to say. I believe that, in general, there is a very real sense of agreement on a number of proposals which I and other hon. Members have, from time to time, put forward, but on this occasion I want to be fairly specific. The Minister asked how we proposed that this decentralisation should be brought about, and, in parenthesis, he asked what we proposed to do with the composition of the Coal Board. He claimed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) had said that we should leave the Coal Board as it is. I do not think we should do anything of the sort.
I think we should apply two tests to the Coal Board, and if they fail in either one of those tests we should make the necessary alterations. The first and most important is: have they produced a sense of leadership? If they have not, they should go. Secondly, are they capable of decentralising? Decentralisation is not necessarily a very simple thing for certain people. It is one of the great tests to which men who occupy important posi-


tions are put from time to time, and if we find that individual members of the Coal Board are incapable of decentralising I hope we shall make the necessary changes.
The Minister has asked what we mean by decentralisation. I shall try quite shortly to state what I mean by decentralisation, and what I think most industrialists mean by it. Decentralisation in itself is very nearly impossible if the Board is a board consisting of functionaries, and we have all along said that we do not consider that that is the appropriate board for the running of an industry of this type. Therefore, our first means of bringing about decentralisation would be to create a non-functionary board—that is to say a Board occupied with policy rather than in the control of a series of departments. That would be our first approach to the problem. Our second approach to the problem would be to do away with the present divisional structure. Whether or no it has been desirable to have had a divisional structure, we are quite certain that the time has now arrived when the divisional structure should disappear.
Our most important approach to decentralisation would be the setting up of a number of practically autonomous producing entities. We need not quarrel with the actual number of those producing units. On the Second Reading of this Bill the Minister attempted to drive a wedge between the proposals which had been put forward by Sir Charles Reid and myself. In fact, there was very little divergence in those proposals, and subsequent to that Debate I had the opportunity of discussing the situation very fully with Sir Charles Reid who agreed with me that our views on this matter are very nearly similar. As I say, we will not quarrel about the number—certainly a much lesser number than the existing number. What we do propose is to set up a number of practically autonomous producing units.

Mr. Scollan: Would the hon. Gentleman say what the entities are?

Colonel Lancaster: No, I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman what the entities are. This is not the appropriate moment to go into details of that sort. [Laughter.] Surely, hon. Members must be aware that previously there was something of the

order of 23 producing areas in this country, and it may not require a great deal of thought on the part of hon. Members to reduce the present number of producing entities something approaching what, for a great many years, has been looked on as the suitable number of production areas. As I say, it is not necessary at this moment to go into the details of the number. What we do say is that we shall set up a number of autonomous producing entities. The control of those entities, so far as policy is concerned, will, as at present, emanate from the National Coal Board. The difference in our views in this matter, however, is that it will be the function of the National Coal Board to lay down the general policy as distinct from being a functionary board attempting to deal with the day-to-day administration of these units.
The Minister said that anything in the nature of considerable decentralisation carried with it a considerable element of risk. We recognise that. No industry can hope to succeed unless it is prepared for risks and, quite naturally, if we give autonomy to these various producing units there will be a measure of risk in the matter, but it is a risk which other countries who have tried this experiment of nationalisation have themselves embarked upon. If hon. Members opposite like to investigate the experience of Holland they will find that the Dutch Government have passed a very considerable degree of autonomy to their various producing units and, on the whole, have found it to be a satisfactory experience. No doubt we should make mistakes, no doubt various units would not come up to the level we should expect of them, but that would not mean that the principle as such, the principle of passing autonomy to the producing area, is one which we consider to be wrong.
The Minister quite rightly said that the central body, the National Coal Board, must retain control of development on a large scale, of research and of matters of that sort, and with that we thoroughly agree, but the difference between our approaches to this problem is that we should not expect the National Coal Board to lay down the general scheme of development. We should expect that to emanate from the various producing areas and merely to be subject to the over-riding control of the National Coal Board. That is a very different thing. We should not


look to the National Coal Board to lay down that general programme. We should expect them to give their agreement, or otherwise, to what emanated from below, and I believe that is a principle which in this very divergent industry is one of cardinal importance.
The Minister said there were certain matters which must remain under the control of the National Coal Board and no doubt in certain respects that is a fair point to make. We are concerned now, however, with what is primarily a producing industry and we recognise very clearly that we shall not achieve success in this industry unless the onus of production is thrust upon those responsible for production and does not remain the primary function of the central organisation. That may all sound rather an involved reply to the Minister's query, but what I have attempted to show is that there is a very real diversion in our approach to this problem from that of the right hon. Gentleman. When the Minister asks us how we propose to bring this about our short answer is that we shall delegate to the central authority policy, in the first instance, and shall delegate production to the areas of production; and we shall scrap the divisional structure.
There were other aspects of this little Bill which were discussed at some length in Committee. During this discussion both sides of the Committee were equally sincere in their desire to see the regulations affecting the Coal Mines Act improved and the Minister given every reasonable power to bring in regulations. No side can claim a monopoly of humanitarian views on matters of safety and I think it does no one any credit to claim that their side, and their side alone, are interested in matters of that sort. Nothing could be further from the truth. We concede that the Minister should have all the powers that he requires, but we should see that those powers are put ultimately under the control of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: An Amendment on this matter was rejected on Report stage by the House, and is not, therefore, in the Bill, and so it is not in Order to discuss it on Third Reading.

Colonel Lancaster: Beyond that, I do not think I have a great deal to say. We feel that this Bill has not gone any

distance to meet our general objections to those things which we consider to be wrong in the 1946 Act. We are in no way satisfied with such of the Report of the Burrows Committee as we have been allowed to see. It was very difficult at the time of the Second Reading of this Bill for Members on this side to bring to bear on that matter any very considered views, for we had only just had an opportunity of seeing that very attenuated Report. We have had opportunities since then of investigating the matter farther, and I for my part must say that what I have been able to discover within the industry in regard to the activities of that Committee is, to say the least of it, somewhat disturbing. What we have been allowed to see of the Report shows, I think, very little on which we can pin anything of any importance. I think it must have been decided at some stage so to edit the original Report that what was to appear before Parliament and public was of little or no value.
Such recommendations originating from that Report as are included in this Bill do little or nothing to improve a situation which, as my right hon. Friend has shown, is a very serious one. This is not the appropriate moment to go into the general condition of the industry, but I am quite certain that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary can express any satisfaction with the present output figures or, indeed, with the prospects for this year. We do not feel that this Bill has accomplished anything substantial in the way of so altering the organisation as to bring about any improvement, and so we shall vote against its Third Reading.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. D. J. Williams: Unlike the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) I want to support the Third Reading of this Bill and to say a word or two about the principal contents of the Bill. I regard the Bill as a most useful and, indeed, an essential Measure in the interests of the industry. It has been said that it is a small Bill. However, it is a Bill of great importance to the mining industry, especially to those concerned with the administration of the industry and those employed in the productive side. The aims and purposes of the Bill are limited, and are quite clearly defined. The Bill, obviously, does not


cover the same wide range as the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, did, but it is, I think, a useful and valuable pendant to that major Measure.
The Bill contains a number of controversial features. Some of these were argued at great length during the Second Reading Debate. The coal industry has been traditionally a controversial industry. Indeed, it has always aroused very strong feelings, both inside the industry and particularly inside this House. Fortunately, the old bad feelings inside the industry are gradually disappearing. Some of them are still alive, but they are largely a hang-over of the old regime. It seems to me, after hearing some of the speeches on the other side of the House, that the feelings of the Opposition about the coal industry are as strong as ever, and as bitter as ever, towards the miners and towards the people who speak for the miners.

Captain Crookshank: What nonsense!

Mr. Williams: I think this Bill will help to improve relations inside the mining industry, and for that reason the Bill will get the support of every Member on this side of the House. Certainly it will be welcomed by everybody in the industry, especially by those who have to deal with the vast and complex problems of the industry in this transitional period. The Bill is divided into two Parts, and each deals with separate aspects of the mining problem. Each Part is a supplement to two Measures which are already on the Statute Book.
The first Part deals with the structure and powers of the Coal Board; the second Part brings up to date the Coal Mines Act, 1911. I think that the House must agree that, if we want to improve the industry, the Coal Board must have two essential things. First of all, it must have an efficient and flexible organisation, and, secondly, it must have adequate powers to perform its tasks. In the Second Reading Debate, and in the Press controversy which was raised about that time, a great deal of stress was laid on the structure of the National Coal Board. We have had echoes of that controversy here tonight. We have had arguments for and against a functional or policy-making body for the mining industry. For my part, I do not hold very strong views on either.
I suppose that theoretically one could put a strong case for a functional body, and an equally strong case for a policy-making body; but in practice I doubt very much if there is any real fundamental distinction between the two. It is rather amusing that the Opposition, who always accuse this side of being doctrinaire, are particularly doctrinaire and dogmatic on the question of the structure of the Coal Board. It seems to me—and I congratulate my right hon. Friend's decision—that the proper course is to allow the Coal Board sufficient flexibility to perform its tasks. It is a mistake, I think, to insist on a fixed and rigid pattern. Our aim should be to allow the Coal Board sufficient flexibility to adapt its organisation to meet the changing problems of this industry.
May I say a word about Clause 2? This gives new powers to the Coal Board to engage in certain activities in connection with the export trade. It will have powers when this Bill becomes law to set up overseas agencies, to charter ships and to establish bunker depots. There has been quite a lot of opposition to this Clause, but there is nothing new or revolutionary in it. For many years private companies engaged very profitably in these kinds of activities, and I think it wrong to deprive the Coal Board of powers enjoyed by the private companies for a long time.
Let me now say a word about Part II. This is the part of the Bill which interests me more than anything else as a Member for a mining constituency. To the miners by far the most important part of the Bill, for it deals with the lives of the men engaged in the industry, their health, safety, their welfare, and the general conditions under which they work. It is very significant to note that so far hardly anything has been said upon this very important matter by the Opposition, who have taken full advantage of this Debate, as they have done throughout the passage of this Bill, to emphasise the importance of compensating the people who almost ruined this great industry. Part II extends the power of the Minister to make regulations under the 1911 Act, and gives a list of additional matters for which regulations may be made. I welcome this as far as it goes, but I do not think that it goes far enough.
On one thing at least I agreed with the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), and that was when he said that we need a new Coal Mines Act. It is indeed long overdue. The 1911 Act was a landmark in the history of coalmining in Britain. But that was 38 years ago. Since when there have been vast changes in the industry—technical, physical, psychological, and social. The Act of 1911 is today completely out of date; its provisions are totally inadequate, and indeed largely irrelevant to the new problems of the industry. That Act, good as it might have been in its time, no longer corresponds with mining realities. That has been recognised for a long time. In 1938 the report of the Royal Commission stressed the need for its complete overhaul.
For years the miners have stressed the importance of a new Coal Mines Act, that was one of the recommendations of the Mineworkers' Union to the Royal Commission. Indeed, so rapidly have changes taken place in this industry in the last few years that many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission itself are out of date. The coal-mining industry is today going through a vast process of transformation, and I believe that we need a new Act to meet with these changes. It is long overdue, and I urge upon my right hon. Friend the importance of introducing such an Act at the earliest possible opportunity.

10.9 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I hope the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams) will forgive me if I do not follow him, more than to say that I admire his open-minded approach to the problem of whether the Board should be functional or policy-making. I think he is one to whom the achievement of nationalisation is its own reward.
This is a short Bill of only eight pages, but its contents, in interest and importance, greatly transcend its rather slim proportions. It is the first amending Bill to any of the nationalisation Measures—the first but not the last. I am certain that as time goes on each of these nationalisation Measures will produce its own amending Bill. I believe in most Ministries that have initiated

nationalisation Measures they have files bursting with matters requiring amendment.
This Bill is a very mixed grill. Clause 1 is designed to alter to a certain extent —rather minor alterations—the composition of the National Coal Board. Clauses 2 to 4 amend the 1946 Act in other particulars, and do it with doubtful fairness, and in the case of Clause 2 with doubtful wisdom as well. Clauses 7 and 8 are something quite different. They are amendments to an even older Act, the 1911 Act, designed to promote the welfare and safety of the men in the pits. No one would wish to delay or interfere in any way with their content. There may be some room for improvement, and we believe that if that could be done before the House it would be a good thing. It is unfortunate that they are combined with the other Clauses which we shall have to resist.
As I said, this Bill is divided into three parts. The first Clause implements the recommendations of the Burrows Committee. It shows that the Ministry are not altogether satisfied with the present working of the National Coal Board. The Minister has declared his acceptance of the principle of part-time directors, which is coming more into vogue as nationalisation proceeds. I understand the Steel Board are to have equal part-time and whole-time directors, and we believe that would also be suitable in the case of the National Coal Board.
The Minister asked two questions of the Opposition. He asked whether we thought that the Statute should be altered by further legislation in order to reform the structure of the National Coal Board rather more to our ideas, or whether we should do it without legislation at all. I still adhere to the view I expressed in Committee, that the National Coal Board should be like any other board in industry. Just as in the case of an ordinary industry shareholders can bring pressure to bear on the board at the general meeting, so with the National Coal Board the voters of this country should be able to do the same through their Members of Parliament and the Government.
I was rather surprised to hear the Minister ask the question: What would the Minister—presumably a Minister on this side of the House—do if


the Coal Board refused to accept the suggestions? It seemed to me that that was putting the Coal Board into a position no private business would assume or ever be allowed to assume, the position of being practically dictators. My answer would be that in the first place he would try to influence them by putting the position before them, and if they did not respond to that they would have to be changed, which it is in the power of the House to effect.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 seem to indicate a weakness in the Coal Board to a certain extent. Every one of these Clauses is designed to make small economies, such as economies on contracts, and under Clause 2 the Board intend to go in for the export business in the hope of making a profit. It appears to be the case that the financial position of the Board is not very strong. Everyone knows from experience what happens when anyone is hard up. Small economies are made, many of which are very petty and very often are prejudicial to other people.
On Clause 1 I wanted to refer to the alteration of the Coal Board. I do not feel that the Board altogether are to blame because they have what we think is the wrong structure. They were quite rightly allowed to choose their own structure, which was a wise thing and almost the best thing done by the Bill presented by the present Secretary of State for War. However, he did give them a certain amount of flexibility, and they made the mistake, for which they should not be altogether blamed, of not unnaturally following the Civil Service. They built their organisation on the Civil Service basis, which was really unsuitable, because the Board are essentially a business and not a Government Department.
By and large, I feel that this Bill has two main faults. First of all, it does not go far enough, for it tinkers about with things. For example, in Part II it strives by a mass of regulations to improve the 1911 Act. Everyone realises that a new Act is overdue. Secondly, it is petty in the sense that it tries to make small economies in certain directions, and also it withholds rights that were expected by some of those who were declared redundant in the industry. I shall have no hesitation in going into the Lobby against it.

10.14 p.m.

Miss Herbison: It is difficult for those of us who sit on this side of the House to follow the reasoning of the Opposition on this Bill and why they have come to the decision to vote against it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) says that they are opposed in the main to the first part of the Bill, and he seemed to suggest that because they were opposed to that part of the Bill it was too bad that the second part dealt with safety for the miners, because they must oppose that, too. To those of us who represent mining areas and who have lived in mining areas all our lives, it seems almost despicable that any hon. Member in this House could take the line that the Opposition are going to take tonight on this Bill.
What do hon. Members opposite oppose? Judging from what I heard during the Committee stage, at which I was present as a Member of the Committee, and from part of the Debate that I heard today, I would say that one of the main points of their opposition is the composition of the Coal Board. We have heard today, as we heard on the Committee stage, criticisms against the Coal Board and how, in many instances, it had not achieved success. It seems to me that because hon. Members opposite are so divorced from the realities of this industry, they do not realise just what the achievements of the National Coal Board have been in the past two years. Those who represent mining areas are not surprised or disappointed that the National Coal Board has not achieved a great deal. We are surprised that, in so short a time, the National Coal Board has been able to achieve as much as it has achieved. That does not mean that we do not at times criticise it. We do so as our right, but at the same time we are ready to give the Coal Board the greatest credit for what it has achieved.
I was also interested during the Committee stage to note that hon. Members opposite are quite convinced that compensation under the Bill is inadequate. We have heard a great deal about that. I agree with an hon. Member who spoke before me from this side of the House on this matter. We sat day after day in the Committee listening to pleas being put up to give greater compensation to


certain people in this industry. During that period there was almost a full attendance on the opposite side of the Committee. I watched carefully when we came to the second part of the Bill dealing, not with compensation for a few, but with the safety of thousands of men in the industry. Then there was not the same crowded side on the Opposition Benches. There was not the same time given to the Debate on that part of the Bill as was given to the Debate on the first part. Even in the Amendments that were put down today for the Report stage, not one came to Clause 7, which begins the part dealing with safety measures.
When I listened to the plea for compensation I thought not just of what had happened to miners between the wars when pits were closed down, but of what is being done now by the National Coal Board. I thought of our men in Lanarkshire and in my constituency, where there is a threat that quite a number of pits will be closed. The older men over 50 years of age will, in all probability, stay in our mining villages and be lost to the industry. I would believe a little in the sincerity of hon. Members opposite if I had ever heard them once making a plea on behalf of those ordinary miners who win the coal for us. I would begin to believe then, that they are justified perhaps a little in the attitude that they are taking to the Bill.
Then there has been quite a lot of discussion about the territory of the National Coal Board in wishing to take over part of the export side of the industry. I hope that the Minister will see to it that the National Coal Board, in time, has the whole of the export side of the industry in its own hands. We have been told by a Member of the Opposition today that this is not a very remunerative side of the industry. If it is not so very remunerative, why is the great plea made to keep it in the hands of private enterprise? Our miners do not take that kind of attitude. There are men who make huge profits from the export of coal, but who never saw coal except the coal in their fires at home or in the office. We on this side of the House feel that if the National Coal Board has had to take over an almost bankrupt industry, as it did, it would be

very foolish if it allowed this part to go completely out of its hands.
We were also told of the very great fears that the Ruhr and Poland would be great competitors of ours in the very near future. Again, great credit can go to the National Coal Board and to the miners in this respect. About a fortnight ago one of the publications of the United Nations showed by figures that of all the coalfields in Europe, Britain had got nearest to her pre-war production. Britain had beaten the Ruhr, Poland and France and had attained 98 per cent. The figures also clearly proved that, in spite of all that we hear about absenteeism—I deprecate it very much indeed—absenteeism in the British coal industry was smaller than in any other country in Europe. I make those points clearly tonight, because the rise in production, and the smaller figure of absenteeism, are greatly due to the measures taken by the Government in nationalisation and to the very great harmony between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.
One or two hon. Members opposite uttered criticism about the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers. We were told that they were working hand-in-hand with the Government and that because of that, they were forgetting the men whom they represent. Nothing is further from the truth. For the first time the National Union of Mineworkers and its leaders realise that they have a Government who are in accord with their ideals and with what they want for their own men. That is the reason, and I expect that it is a very difficult reason for hon. Members opposite to understand. I welcome this Bill. We have just been told that in 1911 we had an Act dealing with safety and that what we need today is not a little bit in a Bill like this, but a new Bill dealing with safety. Surely, if hon. Members opposite are convinced that that is what is necessary, they should be the last people to vote against something which will give at least a little measure of greater security and safety to our mineworkers?

Colonel Clarke: I should like to point out that I said that I thought it was a great pity that instead of tinkering with the 1911 Act, we did not have a completely new Act. I think it is a great pity that in the three and a half years the


Government have been in power, they have nationalised fuel industry after fuel industry, to their detriment, instead of spending the time in recasting the 1911 Act.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown: We have heard some very keen criticism of the administration of the Coal Board. I do not want to deal with that, but I would just say that if hon. Members opposite visited the coalfields occasionally they would discover that something of a miraculous character is taking place. In relation to that criticism, I want to quote a statement which appeared in a local newspaper a few weeks ago. It is not a newspaper which is sympathetic towards the miners. It said:
Coal-face workers in the 3,000 feet deep No. 2 pit at Parsonage Collieries, Leeds, deepest in the country, have broken a new kind of record. All last week they maintained their 100 per cent. attendance figures, and Coal Board officials believe that this is the first time in the history of the coalmining industry that 100 per cent attendance has been maintained. They helped to beat the collieries' new target of 5,500 tons on a five-day week.
That is conclusive evidence that there is a better spirit prevailing in the coalfields of this country since the vesting date in 1947. I do not want to deal with the evidence which one could submit of the changed attitude and atmosphere in the pits. I welcome this Bill because Part II gives some hope for greater safety and health regulations being brought forward for our men. I cannot understand right hon. and hon. Members opposite saying that they are compelled to vote against the Bill, yet they believe in one part of it.
I want to deal with Clause 8, which is related to Clause 86 of the principal Act. Here may I pay my sincere tribute to the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) for what he did for the establishment of the clinic in South Wales when he was at the Ministry? I want to plead with the present Minister of Fuel and Power to extend speedily the setting up of clinics throughout the whole of our coalfields. It is of paramount importance because, whatever other right hon. and hon. Members think, I am gravely concerned about the inroads which are being made on the personnel in our mines through wastage. The reservoir of labour is not unlimited. I can see the day coming when the prophecy I made some time ago will be

fulfilled, namely, that unless we can arrest the wastage brought about by industrial diseases and accidents there will come a time when we shall not have the men to hew the coal which this nation requires.
I want to quote instances from my own experience which prove conclusively to me as an ex-miner that it is important that our men should be examined at a much earlier stage when they have contracted the awful disease known as silicosis or pneumoconiosis. They should be brought out of the pit and helped to recover so that they may become useful citizens, if not in the pit in some other vocation. What does it mean when a coalfield employing approximately 750,000 men and boys has only one medical clinic to meet their needs? It is a standing disgrace to those people who in the past have been charged with the responsibility of looking after the health and safety of the men in the pits. Let me quote four cases out of 12 to illustrate what I have in mind. Case number one is that of a man aged 60 certified to be suffering from silicosis on 29th May, 1937. He died on 5th January, 1939, having lived 84 weeks. The next case lived 27 weeks. The next case lived 69 weeks. The next case lived 11 weeks. Taking these four cases, we find the average time a man lives after he is certified to be suffering from silicosis or pneumoconiosis is approximately 48 weeks.
What I am concerned about is that clinics should he set up, under the powers given to the Minister in this Bill, in order that men may be medically examined at a much earlier stage before it is too late. Every week I go home to my little mining town I find, as I found last week, notices in the top right hand corner of the local paper. There were four notices last week, indicating that a Bryn miner had died from pneumoconiosis, an Upholland miner had died from pneumoconiosis, an Orrell miner had died from pneumoconiosis, and a Wigan miner had died from pneumoconiosis. I would say from my experience of the industry that the time is long overdue when we ought to take more interest in the protection of the health and safety of the workers in the mines. I wish the Minister "God speed" with the powers conceded to him under this Bill. May he


go forward speedily on the lines introduced by the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke and set up these clinics, at which our men can be examined before it is too late.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: In making the last speech from this side, I am bound to return in part to the realms of controversy. First let me deal with the point—I think the unfair point—made by both the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison). They said, "Is it not wicked of the Opposition to vote against the Bill in view of the fact that part of the Bill contains non-controversial safety measures?" I ask hon. Members opposite what their reactions would be if we had a Conservative Government in office which produced a Bill one part of which was controversial and to which they objected and the other part non-controversial. If the Conservative Government said that because Part II was non-controversial, members of the Labour Party must vote with us, the answer would be an immediate one, and a perfectly fair one. It would be: "Drop the Part we do not like. If you want a non-controversial measure, give us a non-controversial measure and we shall not vote against it." That is our answer.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member will not deny that in voting against this Bill tonight he is going to try to hinder the speeding up of safety measures? That is the real point at issue.

Mr. Raikes: The answer is a very simple one. If the Government thought they were in danger of being defeated in the House tonight, they would very quickly drop Part I.
I want to deal with another point the hon. Lady made. Her speech was an attack on the sincerity of hon. Members on this side. We have a right to speak out for ourselves, and I propose to do so. She said in regard to Part II that no interest was shown in it because it concerned safety for the men, and that hardly any Amendments were moved to it by the Opposition, who had moved so many on the question of compensation. What the hon. Lady failed to appreciate first and foremost was that Part II, dealing with the extension of various matters for which

regulations could be made, was in fact extraordinarily difficult to amend; and secondly, that on this side of the House we are not opposed to Part II except in so far as we believed, and still believe, that the Government were ill-advised not to tackle the whole question of a comprehensive safety Bill in an early stage of this Parliament.

Miss Herbison: When I was dealing with the point about the Committee stage I was not referring to what happened to the Amendments today. During the first part of the Committee stage proceedings there was a full house on the Opposition benches, but when it came to the second Part of the Bill—and hon. Gentleman can say whether it is true or not—there were not nearly so many members present as there had been on the first Part which dealt with the set-up of the Coal Board and compensation.

Mr. Raikes: The hon. Lady was saying that no Amendments had been put down on the Report Stage in relation to safety. Obviously if there were any need for further Amendments dealing with the welfare of miners she would have sponsored them herself. In regard to the other point, it is true that during the later stages of the Committee upstairs attendances were smaller, but they were to some extent smaller on the Government benches as well. It was for this simple reason: we were not then dealing with matters of any large controversy and votes were not being taken. Heavier attendances were made on matters of controversy. The suggestion cast across the Floor of the House that the smaller attendances were due to a lack of interest in safety measures is an insult to the intelligence of the House.
I cannot help being surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they are keen on safety, have not shown more vigour in urging the Government, who after all have been in power now for nearly four years, to produce a comprehensive Act. It has been admitted by the Government that such an Act is necessary. We have heard from the late Minister of Fuel and Power that the results of the Royal Commission would have been one of the first Measures introduced if we on this side had been on the other side of the House.
I must now pass to a few observations on the controversial side of this Bill—that is to say Clause 1. The Minister made a


certain appeal for unity in the speech which he made earlier this evening. But it does not tend towards unity when we find that during the Committee stage of this Bill, a Committee stage of some magnitude—for this is a Bill of far more importance than the Government have admitted—not one Amendment of any substance was accepted by the Government after being moved by the Opposition. There may have been small drafting Amendments accepted but none of substance. Therefore, one could hardly be surprised if, having considered this Bill a bad Bill on Second Reading, we are not likely to consider it to be a better Bill in view of the attitude of the Government during the Committee stage. We are entitled to oppose it now as we did earlier.
By Clause 1 the object of the Government is to create conditions under which the National Coal Board could work more effectively than in the past. Even the right hon. Gentleman, who is often complacent, is not complacent enough to believe that the National Coal Board is perfect. This decision by the Government arose from the Burrows Report, and it was, as I said, to make the National Coal Board work more efficiently but it merely increases the number of the members of the Coal Board, including the chairman, to 12, three of whom must be part-time. I suggest that the mere alteration in numbers has no effect whatever on policy, and cannot have. The attitude of the Opposition with regard to the Coal Board at the centre has been made crystal clear both from the Front Bench and the back benches; we believe in a small Board at the centre and a policy-making Board. We believe that the Board should deal with policy rather than administrative detail, and that there should be a substantial number of part-time men upon it to keep it closely in touch with industry outside. That has been our line throughout, both on Second reading and in Committee.
Sir Charles Reid, who, I think I may say without controversy, was probably the most outstanding of the original National Coal Board, said when he resigned that the Coal Board would never succeed without the most vital changes on the lines of decentralisation. Those were his words. No one can imagine that this Bill endeavours to proceed with vital changes on the lines of decentralisation. Where do we stand? The result of the

Burrows Report has been a compromise in Clause 1, which makes no effort to introduce anything which makes for decentralisation.
The Minister gives no lead. He stands here and tries to find out what the Conservative long-term policy for coal will be at the next election, totally forgetting that at the moment his job is to explain what is the value of his own Bill and not to try to discover for the future those things which will explode this Government. The right hon. Gentleman challenges me. If I accepted the challenge and he liked my views he would say that I was merely a back bencher and did not count; and if he did not like them he would also say that I was only a back bencher. The Minister in trying to draw a red herring across the trail by asking for the long-term Conservative policy was trying to hide the fact that he was making no effort to give a lead on decentralisation, or on the functional as against non-functional character in Clause 1. That Clause really makes no useful addition to the powers and structure of the Coal Board, but in my view is an insult to the intelligence of the House.
I pass to Clause 2, which has been dealt with by many hon. Members. This Clause, I suppose, is from the point of view of the Government the most important Clause, because it expands largely the power of the National Coal Board. The Minister in his artless way has asked us if we can object to competition by the National Coal Board; would it not be natural on this side of the House for us to welcome the Coal Board's accepting activities outside? Unfortunately, on this side of the House we have not exactly the complacency regarding the home working of the Board which hon. Members opposite have. We take the view that the fact that the Coal Board is producing 30 million tons less than was being produced in 1939, and doing so at an increased cost of 145 per cent., is hardly an argument for launching them into the field of foreign competition.
We feel that if they enter into competition abroad, if the venerable gentlemen of Hobart House try to deal in coal abroad, they will even beat the groundnuts scheme. It is not our desire to see the taxpayer pay for the mistakes of a Board which, until it has shown it can work effectively, should, in our view, be


kept a very long way from competition with free, vigorous people outside, people in places where one cannot bleed the taxpayer as one is able to do with a monopoly of this sort at home. We do not feel that the National Coal Board, going into the bunkering business and selling agencies abroad, will help to create that international friendship which we on this side of the House so devoutly wish to see in our foreign commitments. Once we get the Government trading abroad, we get a degree of international friction to which we are much opposed.
Clause 3 made our flesh creep when we heard it explained that these peculiar long-term agreements are to be frustrated under this Bill. We waited through the Committee stage, and we waited on the Report stage and had no satisfaction until we were told that, although peculiar, they were legitimate and honourable. All we asked for under Clause 3 was that if there is to be the power of frustration, there should also be the power of arbitration; that is not asking much. The Government are anxious about these long-term contracts. They were very popular in the coal industry years ago because they made it clear that one could get a specific grade or type of coal over a long period. But today, one cannot get a specific grade even from week to week, let alone from month to month, and certainly not from year to year; but the effect of this Clause in regard to those contracts made at uneconomic rates—entered into at uneconomic rates for good reasons—will be that recipients will be forced to pay high rates.
Finally, there is Clause 4, which deals with superannuation rights. We saw in the House this afternoon something which shocked even some of the more hard-boiled Members on these benches; we found that certain persons who had received expectations under the parent Act of 1946, even although those expectations were not good, were to be worse off as a result of this amending Measure. That is to say, the explicit pledge of 1946 was torn up in this House, and when challenged, the Solicitor-General gave no answer whether that was so or not. It was admitted in the Solicitor-General's own words in Standing Committee that persons likely to be worse off because of an amending Act actually got their ex-

pectation made worse because of this present Bill.
To sum up, we feel that this Bill, so far as Part I is concerned, makes no contribution, as it is supposed to do through Clause 1, towards a more effective construction of the Coal Board at the centre, and there is no contribution towards decentralisation. Clause 2 is unnecessary, and dangerous in its application for foreign trading; Clauses 3 and 4 contain minor injustices. For these reasons we are prepared to vote against this Bill because we believe we are as right in our view of it now, as we were on Second Reading.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Robens: I thought for one moment when the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) was speaking that we were to get something of Tory policy, but apparently that was a red herring too, and we have to wait and see. The hon. Member complained, for example, that the Government had not taken up any of the Amendments offered by the Opposition. That is perfectly true—because this is a very well-drafted and practical Bill. They may have different opinions about that, but that is our view. I had the good fortune to introduce this Bill, when I said it was a simple little Bill. It is a simple little Bill and it says in quite simple and understandable language what its object is.
Not the least important part of this Bill is Part II. I did say on Second Reading that it would be most interesting to see how much Debate there would be on Part II as compared with Part I, and I think I was right when I indicated that there would be much more time spent on Part I than on Part II. The hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) gave some evidence of that in her speech.

Major Lloyd George: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not like to mislead anyone in this. He will agree, surely, that the only Opposition Amendment the Government accepted was on Part II—

Mr. Robens: I remember there was an Amendment. I think it was to alter the word "may" to "shall," which we accepted. But as to Part II being an important part of the Bill, there could be no question about it.
We do agree that there is need for a new Act to replace the 1911 Act, but it is not so serious a matter as hon. Members make out. In point of fact, with this Bill and the powers already vested in the Minister under the 1911 Act, it is possible to carry out almost the whole of the Royal Commission's recommendations; and bit by bit as regulations are put forward these recommendations are being carried into effect. The main function of a new Bill, indeed, would be to be a tidying-up Measure. The Royal Commission stated that it would not be wise to bring these regulations into a new Bill, but that there should be a sort of skeleton laying down general principles; it should be left to the Minister by regulation to carry out delegated health and safety legislation as mining techniques develop and that the matter should be dealt with in the way in which the regulations are at present drafted, with a committee consisting of management, men and the N.C.B. dealing very carefully with these requirements and all that they imply.
Safety and health in the mines are not being neglected at the present time, and the fact that there is not a new Act upon the Statute Book has made no difference whatever to the efficacy with which they are being looked after by the present Government. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is greatly interested in the problem of pneumoconiosis, but I should make it clear that the mere setting-up of clinics throughout the country would not of itself meet the situation as I see it. When the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) founded the research clinic at Llandough he did a first-class piece of work and I congratulate him; but he will understand that research is necessary to find out the causes, and we have already done a great deal—based on investigation—to discover how to cut down pneumoconiosis and the danger of it to the men in the pits.
May I turn for a moment to some of the other points that have been made? The hon. Member for Pembroke said in his opening words that displaced persons had been badly treated.

Major Lloyd George: I never mentioned the words "displaced persons" or that anybody had been badly treated.

Mr. Robens: Well, we shall let the record show tomorrow, but I carefully took a note in relation to the compensation of persons who were declared redundant, and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will recollect that he did say that displaced persons had been badly treated in this Bill. I thought it came a little hard from hon. Members opposite who have been associated with the coal industry to talk about displaced persons being badly treated.
No body of industrial workers has been so badly treated as the miners under private ownership. This Bill, which has made clear the main Act in relation to compensation and things of that character, has at least been fair and honest to those persons who have been displaced as a result of nationalisation—much fairer and much more honest than ordinary miners were treated under private enterprise, when pits were closed down and they were thrown on the scrapheap without regard for how they or their wives and children would fare. It comes hard from them to appear to be so concerned about these persons who themselves have done so well out of the industry and have had so little regard for those who have worked in it—those who created the wealth which has enabled many people to live comfortably.
I said in response to an interjection that the Coal Board had done more in two years than had been done under private ownership. I repeat that. I say that from 1913 to 1945 the record of the coal industry was one of a continually declining industry, with its output per man shift steadily going down, the total production and manpower in the pits steadily going down, and that if it had not been for the Labour Government and nationalisation, these three factors would have ruined the industry and brought down the economy of the country.

Colonel Clarke: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there was ever a shortage of coal? What was the good of increasing production if the coal was not wanted?

Mr. Robens: In that period we had 3,000,000 unemployed. Production was never as high as it is today. It still does not alter the fact that from 1913 the history of the mining industry was one


of total production steadily going down until 1945. Manpower in the pits steadily went down and the output per man shift also went down until 1945, when the Labour Government was returned. Which shows that had private enterprise continued and had those conditions carried on, there would have been a shortage not of 5 million tons, but of 10 million, 20 million or even more. Therefore I repeat that the Coal Board has done more in two years than had previously been done in the coal industry. I do not place the credit for that upon the members of the Coal Board, but I place the credit jointly on the members of the Board and the men in the industry because of the new spirit which permeates the industry, with the two sides working not as two sides in the old sense, but as partners working in the interests of the nation.

Captain Crookshank: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to correct some of the wild statements he has been making, such as that production went down steadily from 1913 until the beginning of the war, and indeed until 1945. Is he not aware that between 1935 and 1937, so far from going down, production went up from 222,000,000 to 240,000,000 tons? It was going steadily up in those years, and 240,000,000 in 1937 is a very different figure from that in 1947.

Mr. Robens: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the graph of coal production, whilst there are rises and falls throughout the period—[Interruption]. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the graph showing the rises and falls from 1913 to 1945 he will find a steady fall, broken I agree by a year or years of ups and downs. It is a steady fall from 287,000,000 tons in 1913 to 185,000,000 tons in 1945.

Captain Crookshank: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Robens: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not like to see the facts the way I have put them, that is his fault. The facts are clear to me at all events, and clear to all those connected with the industry. It was not until 1945 and nationalisation that we had an upwards tendency in all the factors I have mentioned. [Laughter.] Hon. Members

can laugh and sneer as long as they like, but it will not alter the facts of the situation.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke talked about decentralisation, but my right hon. Friend asked him a specific question which was, "What do you mean by decentralization; how can you define it? Do you intend to do it by statute, by altering the law as it is?" There has been no reply. If it is not going to be done by altering the law it will be done by leaving the National Coal Board to do it. If it is to be left to the National Coal Board, that is precisely what my right hon. Friend has done. The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) immediately began to knock down the argument put up by my right hon. Friend in Committee and in the House, and then proceeded to build it up again. The only difference was on the pace and speed with which it should be done. The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde said that he would abolish the present functional structure overnight, immediately, by a wave of the wand.

Colonel Lancaster: Colonel Lancaster indicated assent

Mr. Robens: I see the hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees. No wonder the industry went down under such leadership. But if one must have a change there must be a change of a gradual character. One cannot immediately wipe out the present structure and immediately put up another.
The same applies to the question of a functional board. Over half of the Board are non-functional. My right hon. Friend spent some time—[Laughter]—I never know whether the laughter of hon. Members opposite is ignorance or some private joke—in Committee dealing with this matter. Over half the members of the Board are non-functional in character. Only four have functional duties to perform. I thought he made it clear that there were some aspects of management where it is very advisable to have a functional member. Labour relations is a case in point. It is important that there should be one member responsible in the main for labour relations. My right hon. Friend indicated that this is a matter of flexiblity. Changes will take place; there can be no hard and fast rule. As there are changes and developments so it should be left for a number of


functional and non-functional directors to be nominated.
So the only difference between us is the speed at which one should deal with decentralisation. There is no quarrel about getting the administration as near to the pit as possible—of course not—but on many matters it is highly important that there should be centralisation. It is a matter of doing the job to the very best advantage and in the interests of the industry, and who are better qualified than those people appointed by the Minister as members of the National Coal Board to work out the correct and best way for decentralisation to take place? They are doing that, and they are doing it with some success, but hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends have never lost a single opportunity of running down the National Coal Board. They have been most unpatriotic in this respect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, because the industry belongs to the State, much against the grain though that may be to hon. Members opposite. The sheer vilification of the members of the National Coal Board does not aid their cause and it does great harm to the industry itself.

Mr. McCorquodale: That is a most extraordinary statement to make, that to try to get a nationally-owned industry to run efficiently is unpatriotic.

Mr. Robens: That is not the fact. We do not have constructive criticism of the National Coal Board from the Opposition. I sat for hours in Committee with the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), and if the Opposition will take the trouble to read his speeches, not just about coal but on the Gas Bill, they will see that no opportunity is lost to vilify and smear the National Coal Board. I say that is unpatriotic. It does no good to the industry. Good, sound, constructive criticism is all to the good and is welcome, but not the type of attitude taken by the Opposition and many of their friends outside.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore regard it as unpatriotic to attack private enterprise on which the export trade of this country depends at the moment?

Mr. Robens: Private enterprise has been aided more by this Government than by any Tory Government, and the result of the General Election will show that the people like it. The Opposition have used the National Coal Board merely as a stick with which to beat the Government. They have never given the individual members of the Board a fair opportunity of doing their job. We had a quotation today showing that the miners in two areas had passed resolutions wanting a inquiry into administration. That seemed to be regarded as something fearful. What is wrong with it? That in itself shows the new and broader spirit in the industry. In the old days the miners never had the opportunity to criticise those who held control. At least they now have the perfect machinery to do that kind of thing if they so desire.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is that not most unpatriotic?

Mr. Robens: If the miners feel that there are matters in administration which are wrong, they are entitled to raise them, just as hon. Gentlemen here are. However, they do not do it in the way the Opposition do it but in a constructive way. I see nothing wrong with that. This is a good, simple little Bill. It gives greater powers to the Coal Board. It gives them wider scope and enables them to deal with the commodity which they produce in equity, with other exporters of coal. The Bill provides for the health and safety of the miners. It is a good little Bill and I hope the House will now endorse it.

Question put "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 163: Noes, 77.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[11.11 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bing, G. H. C.
Cobb, F. A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Boardman, H.
Collindridge, F


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Collins, V. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N W.)


Attewelt, H. C.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D
Crawley, A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Daggar, G.


Bechervaise, A. E
Burden, T. W
Daines, P.


Benson, G.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Berry, H.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Deer, G.




Delargy, H. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Diamond, J.
Keenan, W.
Sharp, Granville


Dobbie, W.
Kenyon, C.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lang, G.
Shurmer, P.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Levy, B. W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lyne, A. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAdam, W.
Skinnand, F. W


Ewart, R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Field, Captain W. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Follick, M.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sparks, J. A.


Forman, J. C.
McLeavy. F
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Gonley, Mrs. C. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Medland, H. M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Grierson, E.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)



Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Griffiths, D (Rather Valley)
Monslow, W.
Timmons, J.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morley, R.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Gunter, R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Guy, W. H.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hale, Leslie
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
O'Brien, T.
Warbey, W. N.


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Oliver, G H.
Watkins, T. E.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pargiter, G. A.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Haworth, J.
Parker, J.
Weitzman, D.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hobson, C. R.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)


Holman, P.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Horabin, T. L.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Houghton, A. L. N. D.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Randall, H. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Rankin, J.
Willis, E.


Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rhodes, H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, A.
Yates, V. F.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Zilliacus, K.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)



Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Hoyle, C.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Scollan, T.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gridley, Sir A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V.


Baldwin, A. E
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Birch, Nigel
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J A
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Channon, H.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Low, A. R. W.
Studholme. H G.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Teuche, G C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Turton, R. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Walker-Smith, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Donner, P. W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Martningham-Buller, R. E.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Eccles, D. M.
Morrison, Rt Hon. W. S. (C'ne'ster)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Pertrick)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Nicholson, G.



Gage, C.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Major Conant and


George, Maj. Rt. Het. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Brigadier Mackeson.


Question put, and agreed to.

TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendment considered.

Clause 3.—(CITATION, EXTENT, INTERPRETATION AND DURATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) In this Act the expression 'shop' includes any shop within the meaning of the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1936, or any of those Acts.

11.18 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When the Bill was being discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee a question arose as to the definition of "shop." As a result of the reply it became clear that the definition in the Bill gave rise to some ambiguity, especially when it was discovered that at least one of the Acts did not amend the Act of 1912, and might be held to be excluded from the Bill as it stood There are also in the Acts certain definitions of shops, and as it was intended to cover the points defined in various Acts this Amendment is moved to make the matter abundantly clear.

Mr. McKie: I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having been so good as to make this Amendment in another place. Indeed the further we go in this Parliament the more deeply are we on this side of the House impressed at the frequency with which right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side are making Amendments in another place and are thus realising the value of the other place. Although the right hon. Gentleman described this, I think, as a drafting Amendment to a small Bill, I think it might perhaps more rightly have been described as a clarifying Amendment. Although it is a small Bill, and this is an Amendment to the citation Clause, yet I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is likely to

be far-reaching in effect. That is why we have been favoured, this evening, with three of the four right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who are specially charged with looking after the affairs of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman thought it advisable to have the Lord Advocate present to look after legal points, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is available to come to the Box and if necessary resort to the Whips and so make sure about any point which might come out in the Debate. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has seen the wisdom of taking the advice tendered to him in Committee, because the mere fact of citing the 1912 Act, or any subsequent enactment, did not go far enough.
The mere fact that the right hon. Gentleman tonight called in aid, if I may so describe it, or hinted at the scope of, the 1934 Shops Acts and various previous enactments, showed that we were right during the Committee stage in calling attention to the lack of character in the Bill when it left the House on Third Reading. Those who will be called upon to administer the Bill in Scotland, the sheriff substitute and sheriff principal, who will have a largely increased burden of responsibility to bear owing to the passage of this quite small Bill, will be glad that the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt on the advice of the Lord Advocate, has lightened their load of responsibility even by this very slight Amendment. We on this side of the House, indeed the House as a whole, will welcome the Amendment. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) should think that there is any reason for hilarity, because he always especially claims to speak for the small shopkeepers, and I think he may be included in that category himself. I hope that the hon. Member, having indulged in a jibe, will be good enough to get up now and express his vote of thanks to his chief.

PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 10.—(SAVING AS RESPECTS BELVEDERE ROAD, UPPER GROUND AND JENKINS STREET FOR PERSONS HAVING STATUTORY POWERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 23, leave out "or wires" and insert "wires or other works or apparatus."

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is designed to ensure that the subsection covers all types of apparatus likely to be used by the undertakings.

Clause 11.—(FOR PROTECTION OF PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 11, at end insert:
(9) In respect of any such landing stage which is not temporary, the Council shall make to the port authority such payments as the port authority may require, being payments of the like nature as, and not exceeding, those which the port authority could have required as consideration for the grant of a licence to erect the landing stage under section two hundred and forty-three of the Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920, and the amount of that consideration shall be determined in accordance with section two hundred and fifty-four of that Act:
Provided that in determining the amount of that consideration regard shall be had to the public purposes for which the landing stage is made.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is to meet the position of the Port of London Authority, enabling them to secure a rental for the permanent pier to give access to the Exhibition.

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 8. at end, insert:

New Clause "A".—(FOR PROTECTION OF CERTAIN WATER, GAS AND HYDRAULIC POWER UNDERTAKERS.)

"—(1) In this section unless the context otherwise requires—

(a) 'undertakers' means the Metropolitan Water Board, The North Thames Gas

Board, the South Eastern Gas Board or the London Hydraulic Power Company;
(b) 'operators' means the Commission or Council, and references to the acts or defaults of the operators include the acts or defaults of their contractors, agents, workmen or servants, or any person in their employ;
(c) 'apparatus' means any pipes, mains, siphons, plugs, wires or other works of the undertakers in or under any street;
(d) 'the authorised works' means the works authorised by section one of this Act:
(e) 'specified work' means such part of any of the authorised works as in its execution in or under any street will or may interfere with any apparatus;
(f) 'plans' means plans, sections or descriptions.

(2) At least fourteen days before commencing to execute any specified work the operators shall deliver to the undertakers plans of the specified work; and if it should appear to the undertakers that the specified work will interfere with or endanger their apparatus, or impede the supply of water, gas or hydraulic power, the undertakers may within fourteen days after the receipt by them of the plans give notice to the operators to lower or otherwise alter the position of such apparatus or to support the same or to substitute other apparatus in such manner as may be necessary.

(3) Where notice is given by the undertakers under the last foregoing subsection, the protective works required by the notice shall be done and executed by and at the expense of the operators, but to the satisfaction and under the superintendence of the engineer of the undertakers (if after notice given by the operators to the undertakers of the time and place of such execution the engineer chooses to attend), and the reasonable costs, charges and expenses of such superintendence shall be paid by the operators:

Provided that, if the undertakers by notice in writing to the operators within seven days after the receipt by the undertakers of notice of the intended commencement by the operators of the specified work so require, the undertakers may themselves do and execute such protective works, and the operators shall on the completion thereof pay to the undertakers the reasonable expenses incurred by them in the execution of such protective works.

(4) Where no notice is given by the undertakers under subsection (2) of this section with respect to any specified work, the work may be executed, but not otherwise than in accordance with the plans delivered under that subsection.

(5) The undertakers may if they deem fit employ watchmen or inspectors to watch and inspect any specified work during its execution, repair or renewal where any apparatus of the undertakers will be interfered with or affected thereby, and the reasonable wages of such watchmen or inspectors shall be borne by the operators and be paid by them to the undertakers.

(6) The operators shall indemnify the undertakers against all claims, demands, proceedings, costs, damages and expenses made or taken against or recovered from or incurred by the undertakers by reason or in consequence of any interruption in the supply of water, gas or hydraulic power by the undertakers which may, without the written authority of the undertakers, be in any way occasioned either by reason of the exercise by the operators of the powers of this Act relating to the authorised works, or by the acts or defaults (in or in connection with such exercise) of the operators; and the operators shall pay to the undertakers the value of any gas or water which the undertakers may lose by reason of the acts or defaults of the operators in the execution of any specified work.

(7) The reasonable expense of all repairs or renewals of any apparatus of the undertakers or any works in connection therewith which may at any time hereafter be rendered necessary either by reason of the exercise by the operators of the powers of this Act relating to the authorised works or by the acts or defaults (in or in connection with such exercise) of the operators, or which may during the construction or within twelve months after the completion of any of the authorised works be rendered necessary by any subsidence resulting from that work, shall be borne and paid by the operators.

(8) Notwithstanding the stopping up of any street under the powers of paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to this Act, the undertakers may exercise the same rights of access as they now enjoy to any apparatus of the undertakers (including apparatus not situate in or under a street):

Provided that, in exercising the rights of access saved by this subsection, the undertakers, their engineers or workmen or others in the employ of the undertakers shall not interrupt the execution, maintenance or use of any works of the operators by this or any other Act authorised, and the undertakers shall compensate the operators for any damage to such last mentioned works occasioned by the exercise of the said rights.

(9) The operators shall not in the execution of any specified work raise, sink or otherwise alter the position of any apparatus, or alter the level of any street in which such apparatus is situate, so as to leave over such apparatus in any part a covering of less than the existing covering or three feet, whichever may be the less (unless the operators shall in such case protect such apparatus from injury by artificial covering to the reasonable satisfaction of the undertakers), or of more than the existing covering or five feet, whichever may be the greater.

(10) Any difference arising between the operators and the undertakers under this section shall be referred to and settled by a single arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

(11) In settling any question under this section an arbitrator shall have regard to any duties or obligations which the undertakers may be under in respect of their apparatus and

to any duties or obligations which the operators may be under in respect of the specified work, and may if he thinks fit require the operators to execute any works so as to avoid so far as may be practicable interference with any purpose for which the apparatus of the undertakers is used."

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This agreed Clause—which I was unable to include in the Bill at an earlier stage because the undertakers concerned were not then ready—affects the Metropolitan Water Board, the North Thames Gas Board, the South Eastern Gas Board, and the London Hydraulic Power Company. It is the usual protective Clause, common in these cases, and is an agreed measure.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to, several with Special Entries.

B.B.C. TRANSMISSIONS (RECEPTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Cooper-Key: I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, of the opportunity to pursue a subject which I raised some months ago in a question to the Postmaster-General. I asked him if he was aware of the dissatisfaction which existed among listeners as a result of bad transmission in certain areas from the B.B.C., the reason for such bad transmission, the steps being taken to remedy it, and the date by which the trouble might be rectified. In a written answer, the Minister told me that the places concerned were on the fringes of the areas normally covered by the B.B.C. home transmission services and that, after sunset, fading occurred. Sets with good volume control and good outdoor aerials should be used. That, I think, can accurately be described as an idle reply, and, perhaps, in the true tradition of Marie Antoinette, on the basis that "If they have no bread, let them eat cake." It was an entirely inadequate answer, and its inadequacy has been reflected in the number of letters which I have received since that time, and in the adverse remarks which have been expressed in the local newspapers.
I propose to deal with the complaints of listeners in these areas, and. they fall under five main headings. First, there is the quality of the reception in these areas. After nearly 30 years of radio, it is wrong that these people, who pay the full licence rate, should have to listen to all three of the English home programmes through a medley of noises and fading-out. The Light Programme—the best available—is subject to fading out and occasional interference. The Third Programme is really inaudible either on the 203 or the 514 metres wave-length by the "jamming" of high-powered transmitters abroad, which are using the same wavelengths. The Home Service Programme on 342 metres between the hours of 6 and 9.30 at night is entirely inaudible—due to the same reason, interference from broadcasting stations abroad.
The second point of complaint lies in the suggestion which has been made both by the P.M.G. and by the B.B.C. that the sets are at fault and that all would be well if good sets were used with an automatic volume control with good outdoor aerials. Such measures might possibly reduce fading-out, but nevertheless such measures would also involve very heavy expenditure on people using their instruments. Furthermore, the view is held—and I share it—that the B.B.C. have a moral as well as a legal obligation to provide a service for which the licence fee is paid rather than look to licence holders to subsidise the inefficiency of the transmission. Interference which is the greatest menace both to the Third programme and on the Home Service, is a quite separate subject from fading-out. The most selective super-heterodyne receiving set ever made, using the most efficient outside aerial and a perfect aerial, cannot separate two stations operating on the same wave-length and it is nonsense to pretend that it can.
The third complaint that we have to make is that no adequate steps are being taken to close down the pirate station which is the cause of interference. I understand it is a Russian-controlled station which is causing this interference and which is making unauthorised use of our Home Service wavelength. I understand further that the Postmaster-General has made a protest to the Soviet Minister of Communications on this subject. I must say that I am not very optimistic

about the results of the protest. I suggest that further protests should be made through the Foreign Secretary rather than that the right hon. Gentleman should continue to make protests through his own Department.
I think there must be, alternatively, some method of retaliation against this act of piracy. I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether we must wait until the Copenhagen wavelength plan comes into force, I understand in March, 1950, before we can do away with this foreign interference? And after this plan comes into effect, what safeguards have we that the Russians will respect that agreement?
The fourth complaint is directed at the B.B.C. excuses against providing a special wavelength in this area. We are told that there are insufficient wavelengths available, but that it has been found possible to find one for foreign broadcasts. Surely no other European country uses one of these allotted medium-band wavelengths in this way? It has also been found possible to find a wavelength to start the Third Programme and a further one to provide a network of low-power stations to relay this programme, at a time when it was known by the B.B.C. that there were certain existing areas which were receiving very poor broadcasts.
The fifth complaint refers to the Western Region. Why, it is asked, has the Western Region been extended to cover as far westward as the Channel Islands and yet not permitted to go any further than the Hampshire—Sussex borders towards the east? After the war —I think the Assistant Postmaster-General will recollect this—there was a plan to divide the country into north, south and medium regions. I should like to know something of what has happened to that plan. I believe it was shelved owing to the pressure brought to bear by the Western Region listeners, who feared that the station might be transferred to a spot on the South Coast and the staff dispersed. I am quite sure that all that thought was entirely groundless. I shall be glad to hear that the Minister is prepared to reconsider this plan. The scope of the Western Region programme could be widened to include Sussex and East Kent in its features. I think there is a great deal to be said for the plan which' the B.B.C. had in mind two years ago.
I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General, when he replies, will not seek to put the blame for bad wireless reception on to the sets in the areas. I hope he will give some assurance that the interference from the foreign broadcasting stations will be stopped, and an indication of his own personal determination that listeners in the so-called fringe areas will have at least a square deal from the B.B.C., and that it will once more be worth while turning on the radio in those areas. Certainly it is not at the present time.

11.38 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) has done a real service in raising the question of the difficulty of B.B.C. reception, and I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to expand a little in his reply and say something about the intention of the B.B.C. to provide additional transmitters throughout the country to increase facilities for reception. I cannot say that I have received any large volume of correspondence complaining against the quality of reception of the B.B.C. programmes or of the nature of the programmes, but it does seem to me, as a listener, that progress has rather come to a halt in the B.B.C. during the last year. Since the restrictions on fuel were imposed, Home Service transmitters have ceased to operate at 11 o'clock. That restriction has not been relaxed by the Government, and it seems to me that the quality of the programmes, while high, is not pursuing a higher aim. I would say in general that the public are now justified in looking for some further advance on the part of the B.B.C., not only in the content of the programmes, but also in the matter of building additional transmitters to increase the quality of reception.
I find the Third Programme on both stations at both ends of the scale extremely difficult to tune in to in all parts of the country. That is particularly annoying, because the Third Programme specialises in high-quality transmission, and particularly in music. While it might be possible to put up with indifferent reception of the Light Programme, which is devoted principally to jazz and light music, for serious listening on the Third Programme it is absolutely essential that the quality should be pure.
I should like to know what the B.B.C. intend to do in order to provide sufficient transmitters to cope with this interference on both wavelengths; whether it is a question of home transmitters or overseas transmitters, or whether it is something to do with the waveband at either end of the scale, I do not know, but it is about time that the Government gave additional facilities to the B.B.C. for building transmitters and raising the standard of transmission.

11.41 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) for raising this question. I think it is a problem far better dealt with on the Adjournment than by Question and answer. I feel constrained, however, to say that the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member was far from being an idle reply. It was a statement of fact, which, during his remarks, the hon. Gentleman has failed to disprove.
The problem for the B.B.C. is purely one of the allocation of wavelengths. As the House is aware there has to be international allocation—otherwise there would be chaos on the ether. At Lucerne we were allocated one long wave and 10 medium waves. That was in 1933. At Copenhagen last year, we were allocated one long wavelength and 13 medium wavelengths, a definite improvement on the Lucerne Agreement; but it is impossible for the new agreement to come into operation until 1950. Then the position, as far as the B.B.C. is concerned, will obviously be eased. The fading that takes place on the South Coast is due to the fact that we have not sufficient wavelengths for this area. It is true that interference takes place. There was interference from a Russian station.

Mr. Cooper-Key: There is.

Mr. Hobson: Yes, we will accept the present tense. We made representations to the Russians, and they have done everything they can to mitigate the interference from that particular station. But that is not the main cause of the trouble. It is just that the wavelengths being used on the Home Programme and the Third Programme are not sufficient to carry with full audibility to those areas. The immediate problem is what can be done by the B.B.C. to improve the position.


The first suggestion the hon. Gentleman made was that we should allocate a wavelength used for overseas. That, I am afraid, is a policy question and not one for my right hon. Friend.
What are the other remedies? We might persuade the B.B.C. to put in booster stations and use the two international wavelengths for that purpose. They would have to be of small power because international agreement limits them to one-quarter of a kilowatt, and the distance over which they would be effective would be about one mile. Another remedy is an extension of wired re-diffusion, but this whole problem is going to be sent to the committee of inquiry which the Government are setting up. As far as the licences required for wireless re-diffusion are concerned, they are granted by the Postmaster-General, and in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Captain Hewitson), my right hon. Friend did state that the existing licences for wireless re-diffusion would continue until 1951.
The third remedy, and probably the solution to the problem, is the development of very high-frequency broadcasting on either frequency modulation or amplitude modulation, and the B.B.C. are at present constructing an experimental station at Wrotham in Kent. I understand it is likely to be finished by the end of this year, and in the light of experiments which will take place there, future development will be decided. Whether frequency modulation or amplitude is used, it will involve special receiving sets, but this is probably where the solution to the shortage of wavelengths will be found.

Mr. Cooper-Key: I am not quite satisfied on the question of interference. Surely it is more a question of interference from which we are suffering than anything else, and that from these Russian stations.

Mr. Hobson: No. There is interference from one Russian station on the Home Service, and as a result of our representations we are convinced that the Russians are doing everything possible to reduce the interference. But it does not all take place from the Russian station. There is interference from other stations operating on the Continent. It

is not deliberate, but it happens because of the proximity of the wavelengths. From French stations, for instance, there is side band splash, and we get interference, but it is not deliberate. It is one of the problems arising from the shortage of wavelengths. What we have got to do is to look to scientific development on the very high frequencies with either frequency modulation or amplitude modulation and the B.B.C. are experimenting to that end.
As to the point raised by the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on the limitations on broadcasting instituted as a result of the shortage of coal in 1947, they have been removed. There are no such limitations at all. We are back to 1947.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it not the case that before the war the Home Service closed down at midnight?

Mr. Hobson: The point I am making is that the limitations imposed as a result of the fuel cut have been removed, and that is the point upon which the noble Lord sought assurance.
We are convinced that the B.B.C. are doing everything they can to deal with the problem. I admit that the situation is irritating to the people on the South Coast, but it is due solely to the shortage of wavelengths and not to the interference from foreign stations. That is a contributory factor and not the prime factor, and until we get the development of very high frequency broadcasting there are bound to be certain areas where audibility is not as good as it should be. Everything we can do from the Post Office and B.B.C. point of view is being done to give the people on the Sussex coast the best possible reception they can have in the circumstances.

Mr. Cooper-Key: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the suggestion about the Western Region?

Mr. Hobson: I fail to see what specific interest there is in the Western Region programmes of the B.B.C. for the people of Sussex. It seems a rather incongruous suggestion. I do not think it can be done unless amplifying stations are installed. As far as the B.B.C. Western Region programmes are concerned, it is entirely a question for the B.B.C. My


right hon. Friend would have no power to order them to make that programme available. It forms part of the day-to-day management. I have no doubt that the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman will receive the attention it deserves. Both the B.B.C. and the Post Office are determined to do everything they can to remove this difficult situation which exists on the South Coast, but until there is a development of very high frequency broadcasting, I repeat, the problem is bound to remain to some degree.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question about the Third Programme? It is my experience in different parts of the country that both Third Programme transmitters suffer from interference worse than that on the Home Service or Light Programme. Would it be possible to change over the wavelengths so that one of the Third Programme transmitters was absolutely clear of interference?

Mr. Hobson: I am afraid I cannot give that assurance. Due attention will be

paid to what the noble Lord has said, but I cannot give him that assurance. The whole motive behind the B.B.C. is to give the people of Britain the best wireless service possible, not only from the point of view of programmes, but also technically. I think this Debate has served the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that there are certain areas of the South Coast where the programmes are imperfectly received. I have gone into this matter very thoroughly, and I am convinced that the B.B.C. are up against a real problem in the shortage of wavelengths. I think the very fact that the experimental station at Wrotham is being established shows that the B.B.C. are alive to the problem, especially with regard to the scientific development taking place, which may prove to' be the solution of this world-wide problem.

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.